|
, _ .", . .;
<br /> , .: ; ..a. .,.. . _, .
<br /> : �.__�,
<br /> k:, � �, .,,:. ��,,, , :
<br /> y;�.�,
<br /> x 15. On Octob�r 24, 1977, the City Cauncil determined
<br /> chat the final plat was never completed a�cording to the �oa-
<br /> ditions of prior approval, that thare had been sub�ta�ti�l
<br /> ^har�ges in subdivision procedure and zoning code interpreta-
<br /> tior,s and the irr,plementation of the cort�pr�hensive l.and use plaa
<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 foc both lots,
<br /> that varir�nces 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 remolv�d �
<br /> by the applicant, and that therefore the Planning Co�amissioa. -���
<br /> should review the proposal as a preliminary plat applict�tion. ,�r,ft.:
<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 approvhl and approval of
<br /> the proposed bui�ding site.
<br /> 17. On January 16, 1978, the Planning Commission held �
<br /> �t 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 508 variance required for the lakeshore lot width, wbich
<br /> variance had never been applied for a�d which variance v+ould
<br /> reduce an existing conforming lot width ot 100 feet to two
<br /> non-conforming lot widths of 50 feet, all in violation of the
<br /> zoning code, �.I �tting ordinance and the Orono Comprebensive
<br /> Plan.
<br /> 19. On February 6, 1978, a review ot the proposad �
<br /> • subdivision by the City Engineer indicated that there would ��.
<br /> be a need for drainage easements which have nerver be�n �hown
<br /> � on the mylars or on the hardshella anci that th�re was a csur►e �
<br /> for concern about the lakeshore and drainageway ailtation and
<br /> sedimentation problem, and that there Was a ba4ic eoncer�
<br /> about the suitability of the site for residential use� due
<br /> to the extcemely poor soil bearing conditions a�d restric�ivt
<br /> �-` methods necessary to overcome same.
<br /> ���.
<br /> 20. Throughout the three years that this propo�al had
<br /> .'� been before the city, the applicant had repeatedly failed to
<br /> �` proceed to completion despite requests by the eity to do so.
<br /> „:j1
<br /> ' 21. 7hera ara serious questions of suitability ot the
<br /> ;`' site for proposed residential use because e! the soil �ypes
<br /> and drainage problems.
<br /> '�Y +t ��'�_,�
<br /> .. � :��,�,.
<br /> .� �3� .,x ,�., y;.
<br /> 'i' �� �
<br /> . x4s /�,•`,
<br /> ;�.'����"���`9`.'���.`�r�'
<br /> i` �a
<br /> �.. �r-t*�s7�
<br /> r' i '.�_
<br /> ., f';'.c�� ...
<br />
|