My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
04-24-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 8:50:26 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 8:45:50 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.
/
222
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Primary Issue for Discussion: <br />Lot Line Rearrangements have not been revie wed by the Planning Commission in most cases as a <br />Sketch Plan. The proposed rearrangement involves one residential property that would be split to <br />make the potential for a second lot possible. It is not lear why the three separate tax parcels have <br />not been combined. If they where under one tax ID a subdivision would not be possible without <br />granting variances to the minimum 5 acre l t size. <br />The · otential exists for the existing property owner to sell the three existing lots independently. This <br />creates the chance the City cou.l d have requests to build on the existing parcels that are less than 5. . acres m size. <br />Orono has approved lot line rearrangements in the past. In most cases when lots did not meet the <br />minimum lot size requirements and the subdivision was approved the properties had existed as two <br />residential sites in the past. This rearrangement would create a second site where only one residence <br />exists. <br />Other Issues for Discussion: <br />1.The lots are less than 10 acres dry land. It is a fact th lots are recorded as three separate tax <br />parcels. If the properties were combined it would be a requirement the lot be replatted and <br />variances to lot area granted. The City of Orono has been consistent by not granting <br />variances for lot area within subdivisions.. In this case i it he position of the Planning <br />Commission because three tru lots e · st a lot line r , � gement 1s possible to create a <br />second lot, or a th· rd? <br />2.Access is via a private drive shared ith other lots to the west. If an additional property <br />requires access should a road be constructed per requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, <br />and intent of the Comp Plan? <br />3.Septic test·n n a Wetland Delineation Report shall b completed prior to an_ formal <br />subdivi i n pplication. ·Onl one sit· is located on the property that has been identified as <br />a non-c mp!iant syst m du to the drainfi 1 ' . _ 1 vation being ithin 3' of the water table. <br />The m t recent insp ction of the septic sr ' 1 was comp eted 11/12/99. Replacement of <br />the sy em is requir d b 12/31/2007. <br /># 563 ,\(1 and Ruth F,/ r ndt <br />J96 B sr. Road ,,,, Pion R I ' <br />Warch · 0 .• 000 <br />pa J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.