Laserfiche WebLink
The Orono Ptanmng Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1996, <br />and on a vote of 4-0 rccommended denial of the ret^iested subdivision because the <br />hardships presented do not justify the variances required for said subdiv ision <br />Approval of the requested v ariances associated with this subdivision is not justified <br />based on the necessary findings of fact which must be made for subdivision <br />variance approval per Municipal Subdivision Code Section 11 02. Subdivision 10, <br />as follows <br />A No unusual hardo.Hip on the land exists. <br />B The conditions upon which the request for variance arc ..*d are not <br />unique to the property and arc generally applicable to other property. <br />C Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the particular physical <br />surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the la.id involved <br />constitutes an unusual hardship to the land. <br />D Variance from the strict requirements of this Chapter would result in a <br />development density that the City would consider env ironmentally unsound. <br />E Approval of the variance request would not be in keeping with the <br />provisions of the Orono Comprehensive Land Use Plan. <br />F. Aj he variances would vary the minimum area requirements for <br />a loi . ♦ :orth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code as applied to the <br />entire subdivision. <br />The granting of the required variances would not be in keeping with the <br />requirements of Zoning Code Section 10.08. Subdivision 3 (A) in that undue <br />hardship has not been demonstrated because: <br />A. e essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed <br />variances are granted, by creating additional density not consistent with the <br />LR-IA Zoning District. <br />Page 7 of 9