Laserfiche WebLink
; <br />1 <br />m <br />Zoning Pile #1629 <br />April 16» 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />2.If some sort of lot line rearrangement occurred with <br />other neighboring parcels, the principal residence on <br />the property must remain in the same parcel as the <br />tennis building, and no lot line rearrangement may <br />allow less than a 150' setback between the sports <br />Sent« .n^any new lot line. This is three times the <br />S«t restrictive lot line setback in the 2 acre rone. <br />3.The applicants have a substantial ^ . <br />Drooerty and relied on the City's approval that allowed <br />the^ building to exist. The applicants gave up <br />substantial property rights .*^/f^f®g.^°cture^landowners in order to create the existing structure. <br />Bad the original proposal included the currently <br />sauVsh court (it did include the proposed <br />SSSbll gar?ge), it is entireT7possible that the same <br />approval would have been given. <br />Nothing in the current proposal will violate the letter or <br />intent of the covenant. <br />The Statutes and the Zoning Code give City Coun^cil s^ciM <br />S"a) which defines the parameter, for approval and denial of <br />variances . <br />The i sue of precedent is perhaps only a concern <br />an^ieloated that other properties with similar condition <br />atracture could have i" S“'Vat <br />HSsi.the isauee of visual impact, noise, lighting, acce«/trart^^ <br />*‘it"ir"lll!^lVthat a ve^ few similar situations in <br />Slch^ni’thi (indltions could be reasonably met by an applicant, <br />exist in Orono. <br />nieeiTiVffc