06-08-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

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 �n common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot ets 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 minimum of two acres for a buildable l.ot 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 trecedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the establisheJ 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 cf the 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 obvious traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but the City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum 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 level 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 'boning 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 establish an adverse precedent. 32. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 ane ' have always had value and have been used as required area ;or the r d ence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application i! contrary to the letter c.nd intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. rage 8 of 9