Laserfiche WebLink
•MINUTES OF T13E REGUI.l1R ORONO CQUNCIL MEETING IIELD DECEMBER 10 , 1.984 PAG� g <br /> Glenn Troberg, Johnstone ' s attorney, noted the Smith <br /> variance application whichseta precedentwhen Council <br /> approveci it on March 15 , 1984 , which is identical to <br /> this with the following findings : <br /> l. No otherland available. Troberg noted thatin the <br /> Johnstone ' s case there is no land available. <br /> 2. Lotswere developed on both sides of the property. <br /> Troberg noted this is the same in the Johnstone ' s <br /> case. <br /> 3. Property was served with sewer and water. Troberg <br /> stated that the Johr.stone ' s property is served with <br /> sewer and water. <br /> 4 . Proposed houseand improvements can be constructed <br /> without the need for additional variances . <br /> Troberg stated that this is the case with the <br /> Johnstone' s application. <br /> 5 . Applicant purchased the property not knowing the <br /> existing ordinances . Troberg noted that in the <br /> Johnstone ' scase, the applicant had the property a <br /> long time before the existing ordinances were <br /> adopted. <br /> 6. Granting a variance would have no negative affect <br /> to the public health, safety and welfare. Troberg <br /> stated that here the Johnstone ' s application would <br /> have no negative affect on the public health, <br /> safety, and welfare. <br /> 7 . Granting a variance would be consistent with the <br /> area. Troberg stated that the Johnstone <br /> application fits right in with the existing <br /> neiahborhood . <br /> Councilmember Grabek moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to <br /> approve a variancefor Barth/Johnstone and directstaff <br /> to draft a resolution of approval incorporating the <br /> following findings : <br /> 1. The proposalcan meet allhardcoverrequirements of <br /> the LR-1C zoning district. <br /> 2. All setback requirements for the new lot can be met. <br /> 3. From the tax record it appears that the lot has been <br /> valued and assessed as a separate lot, not <br /> incrementally as part of the adjacent property. <br /> 4. The applicant has owned the property since before <br /> the current zoning went into effect. <br />