Laserfiche WebLink
d C�t� o� ORONO <br /> • � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' <br /> � NO. 1874 <br /> • • • • <br /> The total number of existing developed properties� within 1000' of <br /> the subject property which are smaller than 0.22 acres is 6 of 78 <br /> (or 8$ ). The total number of existing developed properties <br /> within 1000' which are Iarger than 0.22 acre is 71 or (or 91$). <br /> One existing developed property is 0.22 acre in area. Based on <br /> the above figures, the proposed building site is considered as <br /> inconsistent with developed Iot sizes in the surrounding area. <br /> 12. Approval of a variance application requiring a 56$ variance <br /> to lot area in Orono's half-acre zoning district would establish <br /> a negative precedent in the future development of the area sur- <br /> rounding the subject lot. A review of the ownership pattern of <br /> the remaining vacant Iots in the area of radius 1000' surrounding <br /> the subject property indicates that at Ieast thirteen vacant Iots <br /> in the 9,000-10,000 s.f. range exist and could be considered as <br /> potential requests for buildability if the current application is <br /> approved. <br /> • 13. The access to this property would necessarily be very near <br /> the "S-curve" on County Road 19 and 151; any driveway Iocation on <br /> the property would be considered hazardous. <br /> 14. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their <br /> May 20, 1985 meeting and recommended denial of the variance based <br /> on the following findings: <br /> A) Lot does not follow the neighborhood pattern of existing <br /> development, being smaller than 91$ of the developed Iots <br /> within 1000' of the property. • <br /> B) Relatively unsafe county road access. <br /> � C) Applicant had forewarning that Iots may be unbuildable <br /> prior to his purchase. <br /> D) Denial is consistent wit.h past denials on vacant <br /> � substandard Iots of this size. <br /> E) Property could be combined with adjacent properties to <br /> the east or south, both of which are substandard in area. <br /> F) Intent of the application is contrary to the letter and <br /> intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. . <br /> • G) Granting of this variance would set an adverse precedent <br /> in the City. <br /> H) The property falls too short of the zoning standards to <br /> justify granting of the variance. <br /> Page 4 of, 5 <br />