Laserfiche WebLink
City Of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />2. Cone _ion 4 of Resolution #1341 stated in part that "All <br />proposed structures and additional improvements must meet <br />the 75' setback from the lakeshore." <br />3. The concrete patios are considered structures and were <br />installed without a permit being issued in violation of the <br />lakeshore setback and hardcover zoning code requirements, <br />which allow 0% hardcover and no improvements in the 0-75' <br />lakeshore setback zone. <br />4. Applicant has not demonstrated that a substantial hard- <br />ship exists. <br />5. Construction of an 8' fence as proposed would be detri- <br />mental to the neighborhood and would decrease the lake views <br />for the neighboring residences on Eastlake Street. <br />6. The granting of the required variances wou' result ir. <br />the followin4 violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) <br />of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first <br />comply before the requested variances can be granted: <br />a) In review of the factual findings noted ve, the <br />plight of this applicant was created by his own actions <br />and has nothing to do with a unique hardship related to <br />the land. <br />b) There are no special conditions applying to the <br />land in question which are peculiar to the land o: <br />immediately adjoining property. <br />c) The granting of the application is not necessary <br />for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant. <br />d) The granting of the variances would be contrary to <br />the intent o: the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. <br />e) The granting of the variances will serve mainly as <br />a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to <br />alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. <br />7. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary <br />to any of the above findings of fact. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />