Laserfiche WebLink
19. The property i7i yueation can he put to a reasonable use, by <br />continuing its current use as a side yard maintained by the applicant <br />adjacent, to his existing residence. <br />20. The p 1 ight of the land owner is due to circumstances created by <br />the land owner, because the applicant technically gave up the <br />established right to maintain an existing residence structure on a <br />substandard property, when he removed that structure in 1975. <br />21. Variances if granted, will alter the essential character of the <br />locality. Granting of the variances will increase the visual and <br />physical density of the area. <br />22. The applicants ecomonic considerations alone do not constitute an <br />undue hardship because a reasonable ube for the property exists. That <br />use is as a side yard area for the applicant's existing residence <br />which is located immediately adjacent to the property. <br />23. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in <br />question are not peculiar to the property or to immediately joining <br />property, but apply generally to other land and structures in the LR- <br />1B zoning district. Standards for lot area, lot width, average <br />1AXeshore setback, and hardcover are standards to which all <br />neighboring properties are subject. <br />24. Granting of the requested variances is not necessary for the <br />preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the land <br />owner. When the structure ireviously existing of the property was <br />removed in 1975, the property owner gave uE. any rights he previously <br />enjoyed which allowed him to maintain an existing residence structure <br />on a substandard lot. <br />25. Granting of the proposed variances for development of a single <br />family residence on an extremely substandard lot which has other <br />reasonable uses, is not in keeling with the irtent of the Zoning Code. <br />26. The applicant has noted no substantial hardship or difficulty <br />that justifies granting of the variances, and the granting of th,i <br />variances will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. <br />27. The Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6, <br />1988 to review this rpplication, and proper public notification was <br />given so that all persons interested in the matter could be heard. <br />The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to deny the requested variances <br />based on one or more of the above noted f.irdings. <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />