My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-1991 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1991
>
10-21-1991 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 2:08:46 PM
Creation date
12/14/2022 1:51:31 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
337
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #1695 <br />October 17, 1991 <br />Page 2 <br />In order to accomplish their second goal, applicants technically <br />also are requesting a revision of the previous variance approval to <br />allow an additional increment of square footage for their addition, <br />although the percentage of hardcover in the 250-500' zone actually <br />decreases due to the gain in lot area. <br />Applicant's original proposal was for 5668 s.f. (68.4%) <br />hardcover. They were limited to the pre-existing 5488 s.f. (66.2%). <br />With the added lot area and accounting for existing driveway and the <br />180 s.f. portion of the proposed declc addition which they again wish <br />to have approved, the proposed final hardcover is 5794 s.f. or 58.0% <br />of the new 9995 s.f. 75-250' zone. <br />Variance to Moratorium <br />By definition, this lot line rearrangement is a subdivision and <br />technically requires a variance to the subdivision moratorium in order <br />to proceed. The moratorium ordinance in Section 5 states that the <br />City Council may grant a variance to the moratorium if a number of <br />conditions are met; <br />1, Proposal must not be contrary to the intent of the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />The proposal must be compatible with the zoning and official <br />control amendments being considered by the City. <br />The proposal must promote the health, safety and welfare of <br />the citizens. <br />The failure to grant a variance would create a hardship for <br />the applicant. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Unlilce a subdivision to create new lots which would potentially <br />be subdivided under one set of regulations and then be subject to <br />different regulations at the time they are built on, this lot line <br />rearrangement involves two developed properties. Regardless of what <br />new ordinances are adopted through the Shoreland Regulation review <br />process, these two residences will still be here in a pre-existing <br />developed state. The Shoreland Regulations proposed will not alter <br />the issue of a side setbacl?, and while hardcover regulations may <br />change, the lot line rearrangement only makes the hardcover situation <br />better for the Stuck property and has little or no effect on the Bauer <br />property. <br />The Stuck property will become more conforming in lot width and <br />area than it is today. The Bauer property will still meet the 140' <br />width-1 acre area standards for the LR-IB zone. It would seem that <br />there may be no purpose served by denying a variance to the <br />moratorium.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.