Laserfiche WebLink
.s : ..`. . . . <br /> C�t� o� ORONO <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � <br /> � NO. 2033 I <br /> • - • • <br /> . 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on <br /> July 21, 1986, and recommended approval of the proposed variances <br /> .. based upon the fol lowing findings: <br /> ; A) An auto accident on County Road 15 created need to make <br /> �t major structural repairs to non-conforming structures. <br /> B) Applicant reports that this is the third incident of <br /> . property damage sustained by the applicant from traffic <br /> : accidents since 1968. • <br /> ° C) The fencing and accessory shed have existed on the <br /> property for several years. <br /> � D) The structures create no visual impact from the lakeside <br /> , nor the adjacent roadway. <br /> E) The proposed use of the structures are recognized as <br /> ' conforming residential uses. <br /> • F) The higher elevations of the adjacent roadbed provi'de a <br /> vision barrier for structures on applicant's lakeshore. <br /> G) The fence and shed create no hazards for the pedestrian <br /> , <br /> or vehicle users of the roadway. <br /> H) The fence or shed will not block lake views of <br /> surrounding lakeshore lot owners. <br /> I) Applicant's residence is located to the immediate west <br /> on the opposite side of County Road 15 from the lakeshore <br /> property. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including <br /> the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, <br /> reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect � <br /> of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the <br /> ' community. <br /> . 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br /> property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br /> property in this zoning district; that granting the variance <br /> would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would <br /> not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br /> • necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br /> necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the <br /> applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br /> the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />