Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
15. On October 24, 1977, the City Council determined <br />that the final plat was never completed according to the con- <br />ditions of prior approval, that there had been substantial <br />changes in subdivision procedure and zoning code interpreta- <br />tions and the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan <br />for the city, since the original application, that apparently <br />the Planning Commission and City Council before may have over- <br />looked the fact that variances were required for both lots, <br />that variances had not been applied for by anyone for both <br />lots, and that other issues that had been raised by the <br />Planning Commission and City Council had not been resolved <br />by the applicant, and that therefore the Planning Commission <br />should review the proposal as a preliminary plat application. <br />16. On October 28, 1977, the city received a letter <br />from Mr. Plowman wherein he admitted being told several times <br />by the city personnel that there were outstanding requirements <br />to be completed prior to final plat approval and approval of <br />the proposed building site. <br />17. On January 16, 1978, the Planning Commission held <br />the first public hearing on the proposed subdivision and <br />received letters of objection from neighboring property owners <br />to any proposed variances to be granted. <br />18. After closing the public hearing, the Planning <br />• Commission recommended denial of the subdivision because of <br />the 50% variance required for the lakeshore lot width, which <br />variance had never been applied for and which variance would <br />reduce an existing conforming lot width of 100 feet to two <br />non -conforming lot widths of 50 feet, all in violation of the <br />zoning code, platting ordinance and the Orono Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />n <br />U <br />19. On February 6, 1978, a review of the proposed <br />subdivision by the City Engineer indicated that there would <br />be a need for drainage easements which have never been shown <br />on the mylars or on the hardshells and that there was a cause <br />for concern about the lakeshore and drainageway siltation and <br />sedimentation problem, and that there was a basic concern <br />about the suitability of the site for residential uses due <br />to the extremely poor soil bearing conditions and restrictive <br />methods necessary to overcome same. <br />20. Throughout the three years that this proposal had <br />been before the city, the applicant had repeatedly failed to <br />proceed to completion despite requests by the city to do so. <br />21. There are serious questions of suitability of the <br />site for proposed residential use because of the soil types <br />and drainage problems. <br />-3- <br />