My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#4952-variance-2003
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
P
>
Park Lane
>
601 Park Lane - 06-117-23-41-0048/1
>
Resolutions
>
#4952-variance-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:27:58 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 2:49:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
601
Street Name
Park
Street Type
Lane
Address
601 Park La
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
0611723410048
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r � <br /> , � O� . <br /> • O �'3. O . <br /> 9. � . CITY of ORONO <br /> � -� � <br /> � ..,-. <br /> ti <br /> �'',� �j'�' � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> ��kESI3�4� NO. � � � � <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#03-2877. <br /> � 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District,where 1 acre is the minimum <br /> required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.21 acres. <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 17, 2003 <br /> and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> A. The existing residence was built in 1990,prior to the current zoning <br /> ordinance; <br /> B. The 8,950 s.f. (0.21 acre) lot with a 50' width does not meet the minimum lot <br /> � ` • area(43,�60 s.f. or 1 acre) nor lot width(140')requirements for the district; <br /> . C. There is no hardship to support the proposed 28.3' setback from the rear lot <br /> line. Therefore,the proposed addition must be located no closer than the <br /> required 30'setback from the street, further reducing hardcover and structural <br /> coverage on the property; <br /> D. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 374 s.f. (10.03%)to 337 <br /> s.f. (9.03%)where none is permitted in the 0 to 75' hardcover zone by <br /> removing a shed, deck and brick patio; <br /> E. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 3,508 s.f. (67.2%) to 3,396 <br /> s.f. (65.06%) where 1,305 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75'to 250' hardcover <br /> zone by removing brick patio and reducing the main landing deck; <br /> F. The application proposes to reduce structural coverage from 2,239 s.f. (35%) <br /> to 2,016 s.f. (22.53%)where 1,500 s.f. is permitted by removing a deck, shed <br /> and by reducing the proposed overhangs to an encroachment of no more than <br /> 1.75'; <br /> G. The side setbacks will remain 8.4' on the north side and increase from 5' to <br /> 6.5'on the south side with the application; <br /> H. There is no hardship demonstrated that�vould support the variances for the <br /> proposed decorative wall encroachment, and allowing it would decrease views � <br /> of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. <br /> . � <br /> _ Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.