My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5555
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 5500 - 5599 (August 28, 2006 -April 7, 2007)
>
Resolution 5555
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2015 11:48:25 AM
Creation date
11/5/2015 11:48:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
H <br /> � O� <br /> � O � O <br /> � C ITY of ORONU <br /> a � <br /> , . � <br /> �� G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY_COUNCIL <br /> �`�kEsKO4� rvo. 5 5 5 5 . <br /> b. The variance is not within the parameters for approving a variance found in <br /> City Ordinance Section 78-123. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the <br /> health,.safety and welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City Council finds: <br /> ^ a. There are no conditions existing on this property that are peculiar to it and <br /> that do not apply geilerally to other property in this zoning district. While <br /> the house was granted a setback variance as part of subdivision approval, <br /> the variance is less than a foot. Not being able to constnict a privacy fence <br /> • between the house ancl the street occurs whenever a house is constructed at <br /> the minimiun setback. <br /> b. Granting the variance is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br /> or difficulty with the property. State statute does not a11ow consideration <br /> of hardships that arise from the occupants of the property, such as a <br /> disability or an extremely large family. <br /> c. The variance is not necessaxy to preserve a substantial property right of the <br /> Owtier. The Owner may create a large private area by erecting the <br /> proposed fence at the required setback. The property satisfies the <br /> requirements for lot width and area. <br /> d. Granting the variance would be detrimental to public safety by limiting the <br /> amount of natural surveillance of the street by this property and of this <br /> property by adjacent properties. <br /> e. Granting the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br /> the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Both the zoning <br /> ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan call for preservation of the rural <br /> character of properties in the Rural Residential zoning districts, especially <br /> views. The presence of a tall, 100 percent opaque fence so close to the <br /> • street is not in keeping with this goal. <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.