My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-1985 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1985 Planning Packets
>
03-18-1985 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 1:56:13 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 1:41:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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
K- <br />To:Planning Commis sion <br />From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />Date:March 11, 1985 <br />Subject: #896 vTamos N. Anderson, 2300 Fox Street - <br />Preliminary Subdivision <br />Application - Create two new building sites from 8.1 acre paicel <br />Zoning District - HR-lD - 2 Acre Rural Residential <br />Total Parcel Area = 8.1 Acre +/- <br />(west) Lot 1 = 3.1 +/“ acre dry, 0.95 +/- acre designated wetland <br />(east) Lot 2 = 2.1 +/- acre dry, 1.95 +/- acre designated wetland <br />Proposed Lot Width (both lots) = 182.5' (200* width required) <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Application <br />Plat Map <br />Property Owners List <br />Survey with Proposed Division <br />The applicant is requesting a two lot subdivision of a <br />vacant parcel north of Fox Street. The total existing width of <br />the property is 365', hence meeting the 200' width requirement <br />appears impossible. Is any additional land available for pur <br />chase to gain the needed width? If not, a variance would seem to <br />be in order. While lot lines could be gerrymandered to create <br />200' widths at the building sites, there really is no point in <br />creating odd shaped lots in this instance. <br />A 2.9 acre wetland exists on the rear of the property over <br />which a flowage and conservation easement should be required. <br />Access location sliould be reviewed by the Public Works <br />Coordinator. No proposed driveway locations have been shown. <br />Septic testing information has been submitted. In <br />inspecting the site I found the boring and percolation test holes <br />for primary drainfield sites to bo easily located and clearly <br />marked. However, I was not able to locate the alternate site <br />test holes for either lot where indicated on the sketch. I have <br />been in coi.tact with a site evaluator, Robert Koch, for verifica <br />tion of the hole locations. I expect to meet with him as soon as <br />weather permits to resolve this. The located primary sites <br />appear suitable for shallow trench systems.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.