My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-18-1990 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
06-18-1990 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 9:48:28 AM
Creation date
12/1/2022 9:41:03 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
401
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
Zoning File 11536 <br />June 11, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.12 requires that vacation <br />of an alley requires a petition by the majority of the land <br />owners abutting the property to be vacated. Technically, <br />there are four property owners abutting this alley, as can <br />be noted from the plat map. Therefore, technically, the <br />vacation cannot proceed until at least two more abutting <br />owners join in the petition. Technically, Mr. Burger at the <br />end of the alley would not gain any land, but the other <br />three owners would. <br />4. One of the concerns of vacating the alley is whether it will <br />limit access to other properties. Currently, all properties <br />abutting the alley have their main legal access at some <br />other location. The only property that could conceivably <br />benefit from this alley would be that of Hazel Anderson, <br />directly north of Gardiner, which does not abut a public or <br />private road, except that her property abuts Outlot C of <br />Bayside Landing, a driveway outlot to serve a new residence <br />north of the wetland. Also, Mrs. Anderson presumably has an <br />easement across John Burger's property along Gardiner's <br />north lot line, to use the driveway shared by Gardiner and <br />Anderson. If Mrs. Anderson has such an easement (this must <br />be verified), vacation of the alley would not deny her <br />access. <br />5. The Public Wor)cs Director notes no problems with allowing <br />the vacation. <br />II. Variance Application - <br />1. Applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition <br />and eastward expansion of the existing house, in addition to <br />revising roof lines. This house is currently considered by <br />staff as a 2 bedroom house, and is proposed to be converted <br />to 3 bedrooms. <br />2. Exhibits X, Y and Z indicate the allowable building envelope <br />under 3 scenarios: <br />a) the existing property; <br />b) the existing property plus half of vacated alley; <br />c) existing property plus entire alley. <br />In each case, expansion of the house eastward requires a <br />setback variance to allow a north lot line setback of 4* <br />where 30* is required.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.