My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-1981 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1981 Planning Packets
>
07-20-1981 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 11:13:08 AM
Creation date
2/15/2023 11:11:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
w <br />i‘ <br />I <br />Beito & Weiler <br />Page 3 <br />These nearly identical applications were‘made simultaneously. <br />By making the application, each owner has stated that he wants <br />to develop his lot. Both lots are simultaneously "available" <br />for development. This includes doing away with the existing <br />lake access use of these lots. <br />Variance approval very often results in sale of the "approved" <br />lot and development by a person other than the original applicant. <br />In this case, either applicant could purchase the other's lot <br />and combine the applications into one building site which would <br />better conform to our comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. <br />The City is under no obligation to review each application in <br />a vacuum. Both of these applications must be reviewed in light <br />of the other. The effects of a combined application must be <br />considered. <br />The City should be under no duty to approve two very substandard <br />sites when they can be combined into one site, which combined <br />site is closer in area and width to most neighboring properties, <br />and to the intent of the zoning regulations. <br />Denial of the individual applications for two separate sites <br />could be justified as follows: <br />The owners have received substantial benefit in <br />the use of these lots for private lakeshore access <br />purposes. <br />A substantial property value remains in each lot <br />since it can be sold for combination with the other. <br />These individual lots are not unique or special <br />since all nearby building sites (except Heit lot 8) <br />have been created by combination of 2 or more lots <br />similar to these. <br />4) Neither lot has been assessed for sewer as a <br />separate building site. <br />Granting of two adjacent 50' lakeshore lots in a <br />140 ft minimiom district is contrary to the intent <br />of the zoning code. Combination into one 100 ft <br />wide lot would at least meet the minimum DNR <br />shoreland management regulations, the LR-lC *sacre <br />district lot width, and be similar to most nearby <br />lakeshore lot widths. <br />I recommend that the applicants withdraw these two requests and <br />return with one combined application for 1 house on 2 lots. <br />Alternately, I would recommend denial of these two separate <br />applications as outlined above. <br />1 <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.