My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 3631
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 3600 - 3699 (September 11, 1995 - March 11, 1996)
>
Resolution 3631
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2015 2:38:55 PM
Creation date
11/18/2015 2:38:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
, ......_. , . <br /> :} <br /> � <br /> �TO� <br /> • O O . <br /> �b. - CITY of ORONO <br /> � ti <br /> '�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ���kE o��L No. S 6 31 , <br /> SH <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1995 <br /> and recommended approval of the renewal variance application as proposed, based <br /> on the following unique findings and hardships: <br /> A. 80% of the total property is unbuildable. <br /> B. The original structure was placed on property in 1973 prior to current <br /> lakeshore setback standards. <br /> C. The majority of the existing house is located within the 0-75' setback area. <br /> D. The interior lagoon connected to main lake by a dredged channel is <br /> considered part of the main lake placing greater setback restrictions on <br /> buildin� envelope. <br /> • <br /> E. The cunent proposal involves decreases in hardcover within the 0-75' and <br /> - 75-250' setback areas as follows: <br /> In the 0-?5' setback area there is a 499 s.f. or 1.7% reduction and in the <br /> 75-250' setback area there is a 1,889 s.f. or 14% reduction. <br /> 4. The City Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to <br /> it and do not apply generally to other property in tlus zoning district; that granting <br /> the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br /> hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br /> or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; <br /> and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br /> Comprehensive Plan of the Ciry. <br /> 5. The Ciry Council has considered this renewal application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, commerits by <br /> the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br /> welfare of the community. <br /> • <br /> Page 2 of 6 , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.