Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

25. The granted variance, if needed, as to set back was justified by the follcwing facts and was in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono zoning, ordinances - (a) The Beckers home would impair the lake view from the Rhode house if the latter were built back of line A -A on the map attached to Resolution 851. (b) Rhode could not build as large and attractive house on his property as those of the Beckers and La.uers, nor suc' . house as is economically warranted by his sizeable lot investment, if required to build hack of that line A -A and this would depreciate the values of the Becker and L;tuer houses. (c) Building back of that: line A -A would necessitate removal of some existing mature pine trees. 26. The c^uncil approved location of the Rhode house will not impair the Beckers' view of the lake and will not de- preciate the value of the Beck,srs' property so they have no legal or equitable standing to challenge the setback variance granted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction enjoin- ing defendants from building or perwitLiug. the building of any structure on Lite Rhode property is denied. 2. Plaintiffs' request for a writ of mandamus ordering the defendants City of Orono, Orono City Council and Mayor Bradley Van Nest to enforrE ►.he Orono Building Code and/or Zon- ing Code in such a manner as to deny the variances which are pro- posed and which have been granted :n the form of ResoluLinn No. 851 is denied. 3. Plaintiffs' request for an injunction specifically enjoininb defendants City of Orono, Orono Cit.y Council and ilayor Bradley Van NCsL from grantinf; any building perr;its for t.he construction of a buiLuling on the Rhoda property is denied. -5-