Laserfiche WebLink
3, The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this <br />application on August 20, 1990 and on a vote of 4-1 <br />recommended denial of the hardcover and side setback <br />variances, finding no justification for approval. On <br />September 24, 1990, the City Council reviewed the <br />application and voted 4-0 to conceptually deny the request. <br />At the Council meeting of October 8, 1990, the applicants <br />proposed to revise their request to omit the need for a side <br />setback variance. The Council referred the matter back to <br />the Planning Commission. <br />4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the revised <br />application on October 19, 1990 and recommended approval of <br />the revised variance request based upon the following <br />findings: <br />A) Applicants have agreed to remove all portions of <br />the deck less than 10' from the side lot line, thereby <br />eliminating the need for a side setback variance. <br />B) Applicants further proposed to replace the rock and <br />plastic on the north side of the house with grass, <br />yielding a final 75-250' hardcover of 49.9%, below the <br />currently existing 57.3% and below the 54.7% hardcover <br />that existed before the new deck was constructed. <br />C) Retention of the portions of deck encroaching past <br />the defined average lakeshore setback line will not <br />have any impact on existing lake views enjoyed by <br />neighboring property owners. <br />4. The City Council has considered this application <br />including the findings and recommendations of the Planning <br />Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the <br />applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the <br />health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on <br />this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally <br />to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, <br />light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to <br />neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to <br />alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary to preserve a substantial property right of th» <br />applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />Intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />City. <br />Page 2 of 5