Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

26. The City Council has always required that when two or more unsewered lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 27. The granting of such a variance would require amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the rural development of the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a niinimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 28. In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for rural development within the City and to be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader, environmental principals and goals setforth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of th.- specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public, health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvi.ous traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but tt< City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved opt.i.mum level of density, open space and quality of life. 29. The granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension of City services to the property to maintain a suitable lc,.vt of fire protection. 30. The granting of such a variance would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. 31. In granting such a variance, Council would abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots under common ownership and thereby _stabli.sh an adverse precedent. 32. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as required area fcr the residence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and Orono Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of