My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: request for council action/subdivision
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
W
>
Watertown Road
>
3020 Watertown Rd - 33-118-23-33-0001
>
Correspondence
>
Re: request for council action/subdivision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:49:48 PM
Creation date
7/24/2019 1:28:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3020
Street Name
Watertown
Street Type
Road
Address
3020 Watertown Road
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
3311823330001
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
#2466 Renckens & Winston <br /> May 21, 1999 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Summary of Applicants' Concerns <br /> The applicants are in opposition to the creation of a 50' road outlot along the north property <br /> boundary for reasons stated in their letter of April 2, 1999: <br /> 1. Makes it more likely a street will be developed; <br /> 2. Street would eliminate existing privacy,thereby lowering desirability and value; <br /> 3. City street provides undesired access to property; <br /> 4. Makes surrounding properties more accessible, thus <br /> -increasing traffic <br /> -loss of privacy <br /> -loss of safety and security; <br /> 5. Issues of fairness and public interest: <br /> -neighborhoods to west and east are opposed to creation of access street <br /> -City made it clear to Alan Carlson that he is solely responsible for getting <br /> access to Outlot B <br /> -Carlson can get such access from other directions, i.e. from properties to the <br /> east; <br /> 6. Loss of acreage - 50' Outlot would use 0.52 acres, making future subdivision via <br /> backlots more difficult(same issue as loss of area with 30' driveway outlot); <br /> 7. Loss of septic sites that would either be used initially or be needed for a future <br /> subdivision; <br /> 8. Taking of roadway falls under two exceptions in subdivision code: <br /> a. Related to topographic restrictions <br /> b. Not necessary or desirable for coordination of the layout of this subdivision; <br /> 9. Road will encourage through traffic, and is not in keeping with "Minimum number <br /> of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access"; <br /> 10. The taking of a road outlot is a condemnation because it is not related to to this <br /> subdivision, and lack of compensation makes it an unconstitutional taking. <br /> STAFF REVIEW OF ISSUES <br /> Clash of Philosophical Viewpoints <br /> Staff believes this issue stems in part from a philosophical difference between the point of view of <br /> the City attempting to accomplish its mandate to protect the general public health, safety and <br /> welfare; and that of the resident attempting to create a neighborhood that is private, quiet, and safe <br /> for the individual homeowner. While one might expect these two points of view to be in concert, <br /> in fact they can and do conflict when we are discussing road system design. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.