Laserfiche WebLink
CJity of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />No. 2305 <br />b) Applicant proposes to construct the shortest possible driveway <br />between the cul-de-sac and the dry land area of the property in <br />order to minimize the area of actual wetland disrupted by <br />driveway. <br />c) In order to construct a driveway as originally intended on the <br />property along the northerly lot boundary between Lots 6 and 7, a <br />greater area of actual wetland would be disrupted than by <br />construclLion under the current proposal. <br />d) The applicant has a right to have access to the property, and <br />since no access easement exists to serve Lot 7 via any <br />neighboring property, the variance is necessary to preserve a <br />substantial property right of the applicant. <br />e) The apparently variable nature of thj.s wetland and the <br />elevation and size of the existing culvert and drainag,way <br />leading away from the wetland, coupled with a variability in <br />topography and vegetation types would suggest that the wetland <br />boundary is not easily definable. The Planning Commission <br />recommended on a 4-2 vote that the City not require total <br />redefinition of the wetland at this time. <br />5. Further staff review indicates that an additional area of drainage <br />from the south side of the Luce Line enters this property, hence it is <br />appropriate to require the granting of Drainage and Conservation & <br />F1owace Easements over an additional area of the property. Given the <br />outlet elevations to the north of this wetland, it is unlikely that <br />the wetland boundary would ever be greater or higher than the 952' <br />contour. It is therefore appropriate that all areas below the 952' <br />contour within the property boundaries be designated as protected <br />wetlands through a Conservation 6 Flowage Easement. <br />6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br />property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not <br />adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air ncr pose a fire hazard <br />or other danger to neighboring properties would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicant, but is iecessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a <br />substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping <br />with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive plan <br />of the City. <br />F-ge 2 of 5 <br />