Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF TyEff�44 COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br />January 17, 2006 and recommended approval of the setback variances based on the <br />following findings: <br />a) Overlapping front and rear yard setbacks: The lot is only 140' in depth on the <br />west side and 221' in depth on the east side. When the 100' front and rear <br />yard setbacks are enforced, they overlap resulting in no buildable area. <br />b) Location of existing septic mound: The property is served by a private septic <br />system. The conforming drainfield site is located in the rear yard directly <br />behind the existing garage, further restricting the amount of buildable area. <br />• c) No ability to acquire additional property to become conforming without <br />making a neighbor non -conforming: Due to the area of the property to the <br />west and the amount of wetland existing on the properties to the east and <br />south, no additional property could be acquired without resulting in other <br />properties becoming more non -conforming. <br />d) Approval of variance in 2002 for garage/house addition at a 41' setback <br />where a setback 'of twice that of 2002 is now requested: A variance was <br />approved in 2002 by Resolution #4896 which allowed an even lesser front <br />yard setback than is currently proposed. The proposed addition and deck are <br />in a location that will have no negative visual impact in the neighborhood. <br />4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br />the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, <br />safety and welfare of the community. <br />5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br />and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to <br />the applicant and owner, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or <br />• difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and <br />would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br />Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />