Laserfiche WebLink
June 16, 1993 <br /> Page 4 <br /> street through the 50-foot building setback area. In the Figge <br /> case, the 20-foot driveway parcel is "straight. " The only thing <br /> that is curved is the 12-foot paved portion of the driveway <br /> within the 20-foot straight driveway itself. The reason for <br /> stating that the driveway may not be "curved" in Resolution 2652 , <br /> referring to the 20-foot strip for the driveway, is that an owner <br /> could run a very long driveway somewhat parallel to Sugarwoods <br /> Drive thus consuming a great quantity of land in the 50-foot <br /> setback zone when what Orono intended in Resolution 2652 is that <br /> tiie 20-foot permitted driveway access be in a straight line from <br /> the street to the house so that the 50-foot restricted zone would <br /> not be consumed by the 20-foot wide driveway. <br /> The reasons for permitting the small amount of fill as a <br /> matter of interpretation or variance are that an unnatural <br /> condition, namely, the fence line which was allowed to go to seed <br /> so that sucker trees came into existence and blocked drainage <br /> exists. This is through no-fault of the Figge's. The topography <br /> of the land, the placement of the houses, the provision for the <br /> perimeter drainage and utility easement around the lots <br /> substantiates that in limited circumstances Orono understood that <br /> slight variations in existing drainage patterns might be <br /> necessary to carry out proper drainage for residential lots. We <br /> submit that this is such a circumstance and that the small amount <br /> of fill be permitted to improve the drainage situation. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> ; <br /> � � � ' <br /> �_s=��-��. � `� ����..-� <br /> Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. <br /> RGM/ssc <br /> cc: L. Cramer Co. <br /> Lan-De-Con <br /> Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge <br />