Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2099 <br />January 10, 19% <br />Page 11 <br />7.Has the property oNMier demonstrated sufficient hardship that N\x)uld allow Planning <br />Commission to justify granting of the many necessary variances required? <br />8. <br />9. <br />Should this neighborhood be considered for rezoning? <br />If subdivision of this 1.99 acre parcel is deemed not reasonable, can Planning <br />Commission offer the applicant or property owner any other relief? For instance could <br />a portion of the oroperty be sold to an adjacent property owner and still leave a <br />reasonable building site? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Although one might argue that the proposed subdivision is consistent in many respects with <br />other development on Westlake Street, it is inconsistent with the 2 acre zoning standards in <br />effect, and requires the granting of a significant lot area variance for each newly created lot. <br />The City of Orono has consistently held to its 2 acre minimum lot standard in the 2 acre <br />zoning districts for new' subdivisions. If the existing separate tax parcels were configured such <br />that they were buildable with only lot area and width variances, then there might be some <br />justification for allowing them to be built on, but that is not the case. None of the individual <br />existing lots are buildable witliout major setback variances. That is why the City provided and <br />assessed only one sewer stub to the property (the fact that the contractor installed two stubs <br />in the street is of no consequence, since the second stub was not specifically intended by the <br />City to be constructed, and the mere placement of a stub does not suggest that a zoning <br />decision was made). <br />With only 1.99 acres, the property owTier technically has no excess land to sell to a <br />neighboring property owner. However, it may be reasonable to allow a subdivision of a lot <br />line rearrangement between Lots 10, 11, 12 and the neighboring Lot 9, giving Lot 9 additional <br />acreage, while still leaving a reasonable building site within Lots 10, 11 and 12 that can meet <br />the hardcover and setback standards. <br />Planning Commission may wish to consider whether rezoning of the neighborhood is <br />appropriate. However, under the current zoning, staff recommends denial of the requested <br />subdivision. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval with conditions, specify ing the hardships that support granting of <br />the variances.