Laserfiche WebLink
35. The granting of the proposed variances would require <br />amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that <br />govern the rural development of the City. The City of Orono <br />has been consistent in requiring a minimum of 2 acres for <br />creation of a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City <br />where there is no sewer service. <br />36. In review sjf the factual findings noted above, the <br />Council finds that to establish a precedent that would allow <br />severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete <br />conflict with the established environmental standards for <br />rural development within the City and to be detrimental to <br />the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks <br />to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth <br />in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the <br />specific zoning district when dealing with matters related <br />to the public heath, safety and welfare. Issues involving <br />the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved <br />in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns of <br />surrounding property owners but the City also must provide <br />its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of <br />density, open space and quality of life. <br />37. The granting of the proposed variances would require <br />the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in <br />addition to requiring the extension of City services to the <br />property to maintain a suitable level of fire protection. <br />38. The granting of the proposed variances would require <br />the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the <br />standards set forth in the Orono Zoning Code and <br />Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. <br />39. In granting the proposed variances. Council would <br />abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration <br />of the buildabllity of substandard lota under common owner-* <br />ship and thereby establish an adverse precedent. <br />40. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a <br />taking of property or loss of substantial value because <br />Parcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as <br />required area for the residence on Parcel 1. <br />41. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter <br />and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. <br />42. Granting of th^ 'variances would have an adverse effect <br />upon the health, and welfare of the community for the <br />reasons outlined h«%r«i;i. <br />lage 11 of 13