My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-20-1992 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
04-20-1992 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2023 4:51:04 PM
Creation date
1/18/2023 4:28:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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
1V-- . i':- <br />;'V’i-.‘: <br />it.'-: '■ <br />v;;,: <br />Zoning File #1729 <br />April 16, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />One of the recommended conditions of approval was that the <br />properties would all be legally combined as it was the staff <br />opinion that the alterations involved all four parcels owned by <br />Mr. Rood and that the pillars being constructed or Lots 54, 55 <br />and 56 and Rood's homestead parcel were accessory structures and <br />needed the credit of the residence on the homestead parcel. It <br />was also noted that there may be difficulties in the filing of <br />the Conservation and Flowage Easement over the protected wetland <br />area if the properties were not to be legally combined at that <br />point. As the Council minutes note. Exhibit G, Council did not <br />reguire the legal combination based on the finding that if the <br />pillars were to meet 3 1/2* height, there would not be an <br />encroachment and therefore not considered an accessory structure <br />based on the intent of the code. In staff's review of the current <br />files, it is not clear whether the Conservation and Flowage <br />Easement was ever filed in its original format. Based on the <br />final resolve of this subdivision, the City will ask that Mr. <br />Rood be required to work with staff to complete the appropriate <br />amendment of the Conservation and Flowage Easement so that <br />documents can be filed against the Chain of Title of the <br />properties. The original resolution approving variances and <br />condtional use permit was not filed against the Chain of Title <br />because it was torrens property. <br />In light of a recent problem involving torrens property and <br />a lot line rearrangement that the City was asked to help resolve, <br />applicant will be responsible for preparing the appropriate <br />Certificates of Title and deeds for the newly created parcels so <br />that both the subdivision resolution and the Conservation and <br />Flowage Easement can be filed against these properties. <br />Impact of Proposed Subdivision on Total Properties <br />Review Exhibits H and K. Mr. Rood's letter provides his <br />plan for the comprehensive development of his property. Rood <br />proposes the development of Lots 54 and 55 as one building site <br />and the remaining parcel, Lot 56, as a future building site. <br />Based on staff's approximations of the areas as already noted, <br />the proposed lot line rearrangement must be adjusted to provide <br />additional dry land area to Lots 54 and 55 to compensate for the <br />wetlands within the building envelope. The dry contiguous parcel <br />of Lot 56 to the immediate east of the proposed building site <br />does not appear to contain 1/2 acre dry contiguous area. The <br />area has been approximated at 21,700 s.f. and with the exclusion <br />of the 15' wide drainage area at approximately 1,275 s.f. results <br />in 20,425 s.f. of dry contiguous area. The applicant would have <br />to apply for a lot area variance to build on the property. <br />.7 <br />4 <br />-viv:>;• • <br />■TrttrfrfMiiir
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.