Laserfiche WebLink
Orono City Chair Ressler <br /> Orono City Planning Commission Members <br /> January 19, 2021 <br /> Page 9 <br /> VII. Traffic. <br /> The Jacobs subdivision will access Shoreline Drive along a stretch of the road that is already a <br /> safety concern. The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the proposed <br /> subdivision would create a larger safety hazard to an already hazardous stretch of road. The <br /> Planning Commission, therefore, should deny the proposed application. <br /> Visibility along the road is compromised by vegetation and road curvature. Road speeds are not <br /> always honored. Recent accidents have already occurred. Under the Jacobs Trust's plan, six new <br /> homes will now be funneled through the same stretch of road for ingress and egress, bringing <br /> with these new residents all the additional traffic incidental to home use — multiple cars within a <br /> family, service providers such as garbage disposal, repairman, mail delivery, overnight package <br /> delivery, and guest traffic. The Burwell home access is also nearby. While deference has been <br /> given to the County over road control and access, this should be a City concern as well. <br /> VIII. Trees. <br /> There are also many trees that run along the common boundary of the Burwell/Jacobs property. <br /> Based on recent staking, it is clear that most of the trees, some belonging to Ms. Burwell, will be <br /> damaged or removed to construct what appears to be a zero-lot line road along the common <br /> boundary between the Jacobs and Burwell properties. It is not clear if these trees will be replaced <br /> and at whose expense. <br /> IX. Variance. <br /> We respectfully submit that variances must be applied for/granted contemporaneously with the <br /> plat approval. The City's action in arbitrarily assuming new ALS lines to facilitate subdivision <br /> approval effectively grants numerous variances to the Jacobs Trust without requiring the Jacobs <br /> Trust to meet the variance criteria. <br /> In the present case, lots 3 and 5 do not meet the criteria for a variance and should not be approved <br /> for variances. <br /> Variances may be granted only under specific circumstances. "The council upon application may <br /> grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions <br /> and safeguards in the variances so granted, in cases where there are practical difficulties in the <br /> way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter and where the variance does <br /> not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this chapter nor the health or we/fare of the public." <br /> (Sec. 78-121) (Emphasis Ours.) The Jacobs Trust does not satisfy these requirements. <br /> First, they do not meet the practical difficulties requirement. Sec. 78-123 of the Orono Code of <br /> Ordinances lays out the "parameters within which a variance may be granted." One of those <br /> parameters is that "[t]he plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property <br /> not created by the landowner." (Sec. 78-123(a)(2)). This plainly does not apply to the Jacobs <br /> Trust; their problem with the ALS is not unique to the property, and it is one of their own making <br /> by attempting to subdivide a single property into six different lots. The Ordinances further specify <br /> that"[e]conomic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties" meriting a variance. <br /> 9 <br /> 6733724v1 <br />