My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5238
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 5200 - 5299 (June 28, 2004 - April 11, 2005)
>
Resolution 5238
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 2:24:06 PM
Creation date
11/9/2015 2:24:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
-� o.�,. <br /> � <br /> 0 0 � <br /> • �� 1 CITY of ORONO <br /> � :, ; � <br /> , ti <br /> �'�� �G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY�COUNCIL <br /> `�kEsK�4 NO. � � � , <br /> 4. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br /> held on September 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the variance to <br /> . permit the accessory building to be located closer to the street or front lot <br /> line than the principal residence, and denial of the side yard setback and <br /> � oversized building request, based on the following findings: <br /> a. The constraints of the required wetland and septic setbacks. <br /> b. The street or front lot line of the property does not function as the front <br /> of the lot. <br /> c. The platted street right-of-way is currently undeveloped and isn't <br /> foreseeable to develop in the future. <br /> • d. The lot is secluded by wetlands to the west and railroad property to the <br /> north. � <br /> e. The lot is heavily wooded. • <br /> f. A tree line exists to the east providing screening to the most affected <br /> neighbor. <br /> g. If a building 1,200 s.f. in size were constructed, the need for a north <br /> side yard setback variance could be eliminated. <br /> h. Construction of a 2,160 s.f. building could create the appearance of a <br /> second principal residence and have the potential for unacceptable <br /> uses is a residential zone, such as rental space and a home occupation. <br /> 5. The applicants revised their application prior to the October 11, 2004 City <br /> Council meeting to comply with the September 20, 2004 Planning <br /> Commission recommendation. <br /> 6. The City Council finds that the revised proposal, consistent with the <br /> Planning Commission recommendation is acceptable based on the finding <br /> • � noted above. <br /> Page 2 of 6 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.