Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1376. <br />2. The current request to retain the existing detached garage in its <br />existing substandard location, which would necessitate retention or <br />placement of hardcover in excess of the 29% hardcover in the 75-250' <br />zone allowed per Orono Resolution #1936, was also the subject of <br />previous application #1244, which was denied per Orono Resolution <br />#2415, adopted April 25, 1988. The findings of fact appearing in <br />Resolutions #1936 a»^d #2415 are incorporated herein by reference. <br />3. The applicants wish to retain the existing detached garage in its <br />substandard location less than 2* from the side lot line, and 4,7* <br />from the street lot line where 10' setbacks are normally required. <br />Furthermore, the current request is for 32.2% hardcover in the 75-250* <br />zone where only 29% was allowed in the original variance request per <br />Resolution #1936. <br />4. The Council finds that the applicants can develop a suitable and <br />safe driveway access to the property within the conditions of approval <br />attached to the original variance granted per Resolution #1936. <br />Furthermore, the Council finds that the applicants had every <br />opportunity in applying for the original variance application in 1986 <br />to design the attached addition to accommodate their reasonably <br />anticipated storage needs or the property. <br />5. The Council finds that the hardships and practical difficulties <br />claimed by the applicants were created ’olely by the applicants own <br />doing, and are not a result of physical factors inherent with the <br />property. <br />6. The Orono Planning Commission at their March 20, 1989 meeting <br />voted 4-0 to deny the requested variance, based on the following <br />findings: <br />A) No reasonable hardship was shown. <br />B) There is no justification for approval of the variance given <br />the history of prior applications and the findings <br />resulting from those applications. <br />7. The granting of the required variances would result in the <br />following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning <br />code with which the applicants must '-.rst comply before the requested <br />variances could be granted: <br />Page 2 of 4