Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2(X)2 <br />March 16, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />east boundaiy of the property. These would all be lost with the installation of a road along te <br />east border As with the first review of our subdivision application for this meeting, the <br />Cloutier application, the time to have addressed fumre road needs if a division was to take place <br />was at the time of the first subdivision. Access from Fos Run was twvcr available tpjte <br />nni-in,! ,„hHivider and ihe Citv should have been advised of tlus. If a private road was to be <br />installed it should have been done at the time a subdivider had control over all of the property. <br />A limited cul-de-sac road could have been developed at that time. The shared driveway was the <br />best solution for a two lot division of this property. It minimUed as much as possible the impact <br />on the wetland although one could argue that the building site should have been limited to the <br />south on orieinal Lot 2. The City responded to the subdivider's request to build on the northern <br />portions requiring an encroachment of the wetland with the access drtve. The City is now asked <br />io consider additional variances and to deal with issues that should have been addressed with the <br />first subdivision. <br />If members are to recommend granting variances for this subdivision, we would ask that <br />vou review Section 11.02, Subdivision 10, the necessary findings for granting such variances. <br />1. Does an unusual hardship exist on this land? <br />2.Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to public safety, health, welfare <br />or injurious to other properties? <br />3.Is the problem unique to this property and not found existing on other <br />surrounding properties? <br />4.Can you find real physical hardships on this property such that if there was a <br />strict enforcement of the regulations it would result in an environmentally <br />unsound development of land or is this viewed more as an inconvenience to the <br />subdivider or possibly a hardship created by a subdivider? <br />5.Will the variance be in conflict with the provisions of the Comprehensive <br />Municipal Plan? In some respects, to force the directives of the suMivision <br />regulations and zoning code would create conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />The Comprehensive Plan would support the serving of three residential units by <br />a private driveway. <br />6.Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Subdivision Regulations or Zoning Code <br />would allow you to vary the minimum lot standard requirements for a lot as set <br />forth in the zoning chapter. In other words, you can consider other variances but <br />not an area variance for proposed Lot 2. This means that the building envelop <br />to the west side of the access road must contain two acres of dry contiguous land.