Laserfiche WebLink
, , „ <br /> � Clt� o� ORONO <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � �NO. 2878 � ' <br /> • - � • <br /> FINDINGS <br /> � l. This application was reviewed a�. Zoning File #1552. <br /> � 2. The property is located in the LR-1C Single Family <br /> Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and contains a lot <br /> area of 15,474 square feet or 0.36 acres. <br /> 3. The property was the subject of a lot width area <br /> variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the <br /> property to -25$ hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A site plan <br /> was submitted which met those conditions and the house was <br /> constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James <br /> McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the <br /> � driveway functional. A further variance was granted to <br /> allow up to 35$ hardcover via Resolution #1908 on January <br /> 13, 1986. <br /> 4. A review of the hardcover on June 1990 indicates that <br /> • the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5�, in <br /> excess of that which was allowed by Resolution #1908. The <br /> applicants currently propose to increase hardcover from <br /> 40.5� up to 42.7$ in the 75-250' zone where only 35� was <br /> allowed, and �increase from approximately 0.3� to 2.3� in the <br /> 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. <br /> 5. The applicants have not added any hardcover to the <br /> property since they purchased it from the previous owner. <br /> 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this variance <br /> request on June 18, 1990 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial <br /> based on the following findings : <br /> A. No adequate hardship was given to justify further <br /> increases in hardcover above that which was previously <br /> approved for the previous owner. <br /> B. No adequate hardship or justification was given for <br /> the proposed grading work in the protected 0-75' lake- <br /> shore setback zone. <br /> 7. In reviewing the site plan, Cauncil finds that plans <br /> could be revised so that the proposed patio could feasibly <br /> be constructed on the property without excavation or <br /> • - hardcover in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. <br /> Further, the Council finds that because the driveway was <br /> constructed in excess of the driveway hardcover previously <br /> approved, no additional hardcover is justified without <br /> removal of a11 excess portions of the driveway. <br /> . Page 2 of 4 � <br />