#2365 Scanned File - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono City Council Subdivision: 3750 Ba May 25,1998 I understand that the main duty of the Orono City Council is to represent the people in the community. I have enclosed a signed letter from all of my neighbors within 350' feet of my property giving full support in our endeavors to subdivide our property. I am asking to be granted the same considerations as my neighbor was in 1992 concerning using the wetland credit. I am fully within the scope of the law by using this zoning code to subdivide my property; in fact, Mr. Evans used this zoning code in 1992. You will note that my situation mirrors Mr. Evans situation in every way except for the 1' to 15' width variation. 1. He was originally assessed only one sewer unit, as was I. 2. A sewer stub can easily be provided to serve lot# 1, as it was for Mr. Evans 3.Both of my lots actually contain more dry buildable land than the lot subdivided for Mr. Evans. I have 1.38 acres and 1.93 acres, he had 1.20 acres. 4. His lots have one lakeshore lot, one not lakeshore lot, as do I. 5. He is accessed by Bayside Road, as am I. 6. His lots met the minimum standard ofLR-lA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District for a single family home without additional variances, as do mine. 7. I actually have close to twice as large of a buildable envelope ofland as Mr. Evans. In reference to the width variance, my lots are 185' and 214' .I am only asking for 15'. I can redesign the division and in doing that I would only need 1' variance. I would have to change the end of our existing driveway to curve to the east. Ascetically, it would look better to leave it. The neighbor to the east has an existing width of 150.19'. The neighbor to the west has an existing width of 148.5'.The neighbor behind us has an existing width of 176.76. The neighbor directly in front of the neighbor to the west has less than¼ acre total land. Our new lot with a 15' width variance will still be wider than all abutting neighbors. Note that the two newest holl)es that abut our property are not two-acre lots. I am prevailing upon the Council to declare this to be sewered property and grant the wetland credit and lot width variance (as requested). I feel that Council has already proven by virtue of it's own actions that this subdivision is well within the boundaries of the Zoning Code. I have proven that I have the full support of all the neighbors that would be affected. Both lots would be consistent with other lots in the area as far as width and depth. Some of the members of the Planning Commission noted that Council has given far more variances for other properties and that this would be the best use of this property. Changing the Law at the same time as my application is unfair and more than a coincidence when in fact I had my application in before this came before the Planning Commission. If Council wishes to eliminate the wetland credit, it would be after my subdivision is complete. I have proceeded in good faith based on the laws in effect at the time of my aeplication. I deserve to have this a plication approved tonight. Thank You.