My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 4095
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 4000 - 4099 (November 10, 1997 - June 22, 1998)
>
Resolution 4095
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2015 11:42:18 AM
Creation date
11/18/2015 11:42:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r F'' <br /> � O� , <br /> • O O . <br /> ��b. - CITY of ORONO <br /> � ti � <br /> '�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> . ��`9IfE Hp4�'� . � . . � NO. � � � � � � . . � �. <br /> � S <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2366. � <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 <br /> sq. ft. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .60 acres or 26,261 sq. <br /> ft. <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998, and <br /> recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> A. . The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. � <br /> � . . � � <br /> B. The original swimming pool was constructed in 1972 and side yazd <br /> variances were granted in 1976 for the house, deck, and pool. <br /> C. The swimming pool was damaged in July 1997 and the applicants <br /> proceeded to work with the pool contractor and insurance company in <br /> repairing the pool. <br /> D. The pool contractor and insurance company deterniined that the pool <br /> needed to be completely replaced. <br /> E. The deck and swimming pool do not infringe on lake views from <br /> . � � . adjacent properties. . � - � � . . <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that � <br /> granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely � <br /> serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br /> property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> • intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 6 � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.