Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br /> CITY r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. 2305 <br /> tom <br /> ORONO <br /> b) Applicant proposes to construct the shortest possible driveway <br /> between the cul-de-sac and the dry land area of the property in <br /> order to minimize the area of actual wetland disrupted by <br /> driveway. <br /> c) In order to construct a driveway as originally intended on the <br /> property along the northerly lot boundary between Lots 6 and 7, a <br /> greater area of actual wetland would be disrupted than by <br /> construction under the current proposal. <br /> d) The applicant has a right to have access to the property, and <br /> since noaccess easement exists to serve Lot 7 via any <br /> neighboring property, the variance is necessary to preserve a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. <br /> e) The apparently variable nature of this wetland and the <br /> elevation and size of the existing culvert and drainageway <br /> leading away from the wetland, coupled with a variability in <br /> topography and vegetation types would suggest that the wetland <br /> boundary is not easily definable. The Planning Commission <br /> recommended on a 4-2 vote that the City not require a total <br /> redefinition of the wetland at this time. <br /> 5. Further staff review indicates that an additional area of drainage <br /> from the south side of the Luce Line enters this property, hence it is <br /> appropriate to require the granting of Drainage and Conservation & <br /> Flowage Easements over an additional area of the property. Given the <br /> outlet elevations to the north of this wetland, it is unlikely that <br /> the wetland boundary would ever be greater or higher than the 952' <br /> contour. It is therefore appropriate that all areas below the 952' <br /> contour within the property boundaries be designated as protected <br /> wetlands through a Conservation & Flowage Easement. <br /> 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br /> property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br /> property in th$.s zoning district; that granting the variance would not <br /> adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br /> or other dangelr to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a+ <br /> convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrable lhardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping <br /> with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan <br /> of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />