Laserfiche WebLink
�' � t <br /> • <br /> (� � . Clt� o� ORONO <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .. <br /> NO. 1394 <br /> � <br /> • � • • <br /> 15) In Berg' s letter of June 29, 1982, he makes the <br /> following comment: <br /> "If health, safety and welfare considerations are <br /> not affected in a planned residential development <br /> by a 30 foot separation between buildings on � <br /> adjoining parcels of land, I da not see how they <br /> could be denied to be adversely affected in the <br /> present care. " <br /> 16) The denial of this variance application by both <br /> Planning Commission and Council was not denied on <br /> the basis of adverse affects to the health, safety <br /> and welfare of the community but was clearly based <br /> on the foll.owing: ' <br /> a) To approve setback variances for future <br /> construction on lots currently involved in - <br /> • a subdivision review would be in complete <br /> conflict with the intent and objectives of <br /> the platting code, the LR-lA zoning district <br /> , and the Orono Comprehensive Land Use Plan. <br /> b) Throughout this review we have heard claims of <br /> specific hardships to the land but the applicant <br /> has failed to demonstrate this hardshin. The <br /> Council has responded to� the application as presented <br /> finding adequate area to locate both the proposed <br /> and principal structure on Lot 2 and an attached <br /> or detached garage on Lot 3. Applicants made no <br /> attempt to modify the variance application after <br /> staff and Planning Commission review. <br /> c) The Couricil cannot •grant variances based on the <br /> convenience of th.e applicants but must be based <br /> on demonstrated hardship. . <br /> 'd) Council finds no special conditi:ons apply to this <br /> application as proposed that would permit the <br /> granting of the setback variances. <br /> • <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br />