My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-20-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
03-20-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:45:41 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:45:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 <br />( #1 - #2000 Cortlen Cloutier -Continued) <br />Mr. Cloutier said he had nothing to add to the report and had no plans at this time for lots <br />3 and 4. He reported that he purchased 4 lots in 1965. The property was platted with a <br />roadway on outlot 1 providing egress and ingress. Cloutier said he used outlot I for <br />access at one time, and then he put in a guest driveway and now uses access off of <br />Frederick Street. The applicant said that the outlot 1 roadway has existed for over 30 <br />years. The driveway he created has been used for less than 30 years along with the access <br />on Frederick Street. The applicant reported he created the access so as not to <br />inconvenience the residents of lot 2, the Paurus family. <br />Mr. Cloutier said he called the County tax division in 1967 and asked for one tax <br />statement. He reported that he was not aware that he had legally combined the lots, which <br />was done. Cloutier would like to divide lot 1 to build a house for his son. The lot division <br />can be done through metes and bounds division through the City. The lot meet the area <br />and width requirements. With the lot division, the driveway through lot 1 would be <br />removed, as it was never legally installed. <br />The Commission members discussed what would happen with lots 3 and 4 if lot I were to <br />be divided now. Rowlette said that lot 3 would become a back tot. Rowlette questioned <br />whether access would be through a new road or an outlot for the back lots. Lindquist <br />thought that since it had been subdivided in the past that it would have to be allowed to be <br />so again. Rowlette suggested having the city attorney peruse the situation to eliminate a <br />problem with subdivision in the future. <br />Wilbur Anderson of 3555 Frederick Street asked how the lots were declared for sewer and <br />water hook -up. Mabusth responded that the property has been assessed for 2 water units <br />but with this sewer project, by lineal footage along the roads were assessed. <br />John Erickson, 1620 Shadywood Road, who owned two lots on Shadywood, which his <br />parents had since 1941, said that people were asked at that time if they wanted one or two <br />tax statements if they had two lots. He reported that he has one statement but owns two <br />lots with two sewer stubs. Mabusth agreed that their land use planning was not consistent <br />when sewer and water stubs were given out to properties. <br />Schroeder noted that 3 sewer hookups would be needed if the lots were subdivided. Mr. <br />Cloutier said that the house located on lot 4 is not hooked up on Casco Pt but hooked up <br />through Frederick Street. When Casco sewer was installed, he had been asked where he <br />would like the sewer stubbed in. There is a sewer stub to serve lot 1 at Casco Point Road. <br />An easement runs through lot I for lot 3 for both ingress /egress and utilities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.