Laserfiche WebLink
..� ...y,...� ... ..... � ..,......_..._. ..r...n_-'-'------�... �......_ .. , .•.s � .,..�..�..�u.�F.me.,Z......n�,...,..+,.w..�..�...�.-.......»..».� <br /> ... . ... .. _ . ., . -_ .i . • K .. <br /> . � . � j� ' . . . . r� 'r �^-iw.1 1Q s"_ , . . • <br /> ' ' �� . . � �+•:'} , . �N . . . • ' T�l� . <br /> ,' . ' . � � • . `�::*� �n . . <br /> � � C�t�::�o� ORONO - .--.__ . _ . .. ��.: _ <br /> • . � � <br /> � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L , <br /> . � NO. 2014 <br /> . • - • • <br /> r . <br /> I • . <br /> 14. The applicant purchasers of the property were aware of the zoning <br /> code requirements prior to their agreement to purchase the property <br /> and in fact appliecl for variances prior to the date of their purchase <br /> � agreement, which they stated as being January 1986. Any hardship <br /> . would seem to be self imposed. � <br /> " 15. The LR-1C Single� Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning� District <br /> contains 631 developed residential units. Of these 631 units: <br /> - 209 of 631 (or 33�) exceed the 0. 50 acre lot area requirement <br /> � - 517 of 631 (or 82� ) are in excess of 0.20 acres <br /> - 611 of 631 (or 97� ) are in excess of 0.15 acres <br /> � The Council finds that this lot of area 0.12 acres is not' <br /> consistent with the existing developed lot sizes in the LR-1C Zoning <br /> District. <br /> 16. The property falls so far short of the zoning standards that the <br /> requested variances are too extensive to justify� their granting. <br /> 17. Variances of the number and magnitude requested have not been <br /> previously granted for any property in the LR-1C Zoning District in <br /> con temporary times. The Council finds that denial of the variances is <br /> consistent with previous Council action and does not deny applicant <br /> equal treatment and protection under the law. <br /> 18. The property does not conform to the current development pattern <br /> . • of the neighborhood. <br /> 19. The granting of the variances for the proposed development would <br /> set an adverse precedent in the City. <br /> 20. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and <br /> intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br /> . 21. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be <br /> . diminished by adding a structure on this substandard lot. <br /> 22. The vaiues of surrounding properties wi,l 1 be adversely affected. <br /> � 23. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect upon the <br /> health, safety, and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined <br /> herein. <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br />