Laserfiche WebLink
/ �O�O <br /> CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � � <br /> ti � <br /> �� G' No. 64 � � <br /> �kEs H o�� <br /> � <br /> FINDINGS <br /> l. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 14-3675. <br /> 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning <br /> District. <br /> 3. The Applicants have submitted a proposed building site plan for a new residence <br /> that meets all required setbacks with the exception of the average lakeshore <br /> setback. The Property has municipal public sewer available, which the new <br /> residence will be connected. The proposed impervious surface coverage meets all <br /> hardcover location and square foota�e restrictions of the Zoning Chapter and the <br /> total proposed square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the <br /> entire lot area. The proposed house wil] be required to meet all other zoning <br /> district standards. <br /> 4. With regards to the criteria established for granting variances and specifically the <br /> requested average setback variance, Council makes the following findings: <br /> a) The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a <br /> reasonable manner; however, the proposed use is not permitted by <br /> the official controls. The Applicants have requested to build a home in a <br /> residential district, which is consistent with the underlying zoning and <br /> comprehensive plan. <br /> b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his <br /> property not created by the landowner. The Applicants did not create <br /> the lot. <br /> The situation is unique because tlie p1•oposed home is located furtlier from <br /> the lake than the house located to the south. The lot to the north is vacant, <br /> but the house on the nonriparian lot uphill from it is being used to <br /> calculate the average lakeshore setback because the northern lot is subject <br /> to a lot combination agreement. But for the lot combination agreement on <br /> the lot to the north, and utilizing the location of the house on the <br /> nonriparian lot, the Applicants could build this house without a variance. <br /> The lot combination agreement on the lot to the north would not have <br /> been discfosed to the Applicants at the time they purchased their current <br /> home. Further the (ots to the north have separate PIDs and would lead an <br /> adjacent property owner to believe the 1•ipa�•ian lot is vacant. <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br /> 17&�56v' <br />