04-22-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L Zoning File #1629 April 16, 1991 Page 2 2.If some sort of lot line rearrangement occurred with other neighboring parcels, the principal residence on the property must remain in the same parcel as the tennis building, and no lot line rearrangement may allow less than a 150* setback between the sports center and any new lot line. This is three times the most restrictive lot line setback in the 2 acre zone. 3.The applicants have a substantial investment in the property and relied on the City's approval that allowed the building to exist. The «PP ^ substantial property rights normally afforded to other landowners in order to create the existing structure. Had the original proposal included the currently proposed squash court (it did include the proposed double garage), it is entirely possible that the same approval would have been given. Nothing in the current proposal will violate the letter or intent of the covenant. The Statutes and the Zoning Code give City Council specific direction in granting or denying variances. The Council must find that strict enforcement of the Code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individua 3(A) which defines the parameters for approval and denial ot variances. The issue of precedent is perhaps only a concern if it is anticipated that other properties with similar conditions vill make similar applications. Approval of the original tennis structure was conditioned on elimination of the possible neg impacts the structure could have in this rural residential neighborhood. Applicants argument may be valid, that addition or cu^rV„\ the issues of visual impact, noise, lighting, access/traffic# restriction to non-commercial use, and future development restrictions. It is likely that a very few similar situations in which all the conditions could be reasonably met by an applicant, exist in Orono.