Laserfiche WebLink
� o� <br /> O �h�, , O ;, CITY of ORONO <br /> +-� ��\l`*� <br /> ��'';��.�. � � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ''� �� .�2 ::fi>�� ,� � •p 2 t' <br /> ���y�E\ �o�G <br /> NO. <br /> SH <br /> 4. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing hefd on <br /> April 15, 2013 and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the requested <br /> variance, based on the following findings: <br /> a. The Property contains 84,130 square feet in area and has a lot width of 160 <br /> feet. The existing property including the porch is conforming with respect to <br /> fot coverage at 4%. <br /> b. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the Property, Staff spent a <br /> considerable amount of time with the Applicant and the designer re-working <br /> the house plans so it fit correctly within the site respecting the required <br /> setbacks, utility easements, wetlands, etc. The permit was issued on <br /> November 21, 2012 and excavation for the house began on or about <br /> November 29, 2012 and that is when the pipe issue was discovered. Cold <br /> weather was imminent. <br /> c. The Applicant's excavation uncovered a break in the sewer line that the City <br /> would not have otherwise known about. Based on the nature of the break <br /> and the condition of the pipe pubiic works staff felt it was unlikely that the <br /> break was caused by the Applicant's excavator. The lot had been filled at the <br /> time of the subdivision development as it was very fow to begin with and <br /> compacting of that fill may have had an impact on the pipe. <br /> d. There shouid be a minimum of a 10 foot separation between the sewer line <br /> and the home for future maintenance purposes and to ensure the integrity of <br /> the sewer line. As viewed on site, the pipe was reportedly very near the <br /> intended northwesterly corner of the house. <br /> e. The Applicant was not responsible for the pipe location; the City had no intent <br /> to relocate the sewer line. <br /> f. The Applicant owned (and still owns) the adjacent vacant building lot. <br /> g. The Applicant and Staff concluded that to resolve the issue the house could <br /> be pivoted to the east, but this would result in an encroachment of the east <br /> side setback. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />