Laserfiche WebLink
' , . . <br /> � h• <br /> R O� , 4 � � ' � ,. . <br /> I <br /> • O � O . <br /> -_ � � CITY of ORONO <br /> ,� .;.. � - . <br /> ��, ti <br /> �',� ' G�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kES�I��� � NO. � � � �' • � . <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended <br /> approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hazdships: <br /> A. Continued use of the properry as residential is consistent with the zoning <br /> district and with the development of the surrounding properties. <br /> B. The City of Orono had approved variances in 1990 allowing total hardcover <br /> on the property at a greater amount than what the applicants have proposed <br /> on the site. The actual property hardcover will decrease as a result of the <br /> redevelopment. <br /> C. The property is a 2 acre lot in a 1 acre zoning district. 66,046 s.f.of the lot is <br /> located within 75' of the lakeshore,and only 22,497 s.f.is located within the <br /> 75-250' lakeshore setback. 983 s.f. of hardcover that exists on the property� <br /> within 75' of the lakeshore will be removed based on the new house's <br /> • � location outside the 75' setback. � � <br /> D. A hazdcover variance is justified due to the disproportionate amount of land <br /> located within 75' of the lakeshore. All the property within 75' of the � <br /> lakeshore would provide adequate absorption area. The total hardcover <br /> devoted to the house and driveway areas would not increase from existing <br /> levels: <br /> E. A variance to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is <br /> justified based on the fact the property is a peninsula lot and there is no <br /> suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. The proposed <br /> house is located further from the lakeshore than the existing house. <br /> � 4. The Council makes these additional findings of fact in regard to this application: <br /> � A. T'his property is uniquely situated such that reduction of the 0-75' <br /> hardcover below the proposed amount is not feasible, i.e. the small <br /> portions of driveway within 75' of the shore is necessary to access the <br /> property, and the extensive length of seawall is necessary to prevent . <br /> shoreline erosion. <br /> • B. While limiting hardcover in the 75-250' zone to the 25% standard is <br /> feasible, such a limitation would result in the construction of a residence <br /> that would not be in keeping with the character of the existing <br /> Page 2 of 8 <br />