Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />5~2 NO. _______ _ <br />3. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application at a public hearing held <br />on April 18, 2005 and reviewed a revised plan on May 16, 2005. Planning <br />Commission subsequently recommended approval of the requested variances for the <br />revised plan by a vote of 5-1 based on the following findings and hardships: <br />a) The property has an existing house and is within the Metropolitan Urban <br />Service Area (MUSA). The applicant has agreed to pay the costs of extension <br />of a pressure sewer line down Brown Road from the existing Webber Hills <br />sewer lateral, and therefore does not need to provide a septic system for the <br />proposed new residence. <br />b) There is no adjacent land available for applicant to acquire to make the <br />prope1iy more conforming in area or width. <br />c) The zoning standards when applied to this prope1iy limit the width of the <br />home and attached garage to 50', which will result in a home that is longer <br />than it is wide, causing a greater visual impact as viewed from the two <br />adjacent homes than is typical in the immediate neighborhood. Allowing side <br />setbacks of 20' instead of the required 30' will result in a house that is better <br />proportioned to fit into the neighborhood, as long as the extent of the <br />encroachment of the side yards is limited to primarily the house in the <br />southerly side yard and the garage on the northerly side yard. This will not <br />create a situation of increased visual density nor be out of character with the <br />neighborhood. The applicant has provided a site plan meeting these goals. <br />4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the <br />applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. <br />5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br />and do not apply generally to other prope1iy in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to <br />the applicant, but is necessaiy to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessaiy to preserve a substantial prope1iy right of the applicant; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />City. <br />Page 2 of 4