Laserfiche WebLink
Primary Issue for Discussion: <br />Lot Line Rearrangements have not been reviewed 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 clear 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 lot size. <br />The potential exists for the existing nroperty owner to sell the three existing lots independently. This <br />creates the chance the City could have requests to buiM on the existing parcels that are less than 5 <br />acres in size <br />Orono ^as approved lot line rearrangements in the past. In most cases when Iot.« 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 the 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 is it the position of the Planning <br />Commission, because three tax lots exist, a lot line rearrangement is possible to create a <br />second lot, or a third? <br />2.Access is via a private drive shared with 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 testing and a Wetland Delineation Report shall be completed prior to any formal <br />subdivision application. Only one site is located on the property that has been identified as <br />a non-compliant system due to the drainfield's elevation being within 3' of the water table. <br />The most recent inspection of the septic system was completed 11/12/99. Replacement of <br />the system is required by 12/31/2007. <br />M2563 \ftke and Ruth Filbrandt <br />3960 Baysuk Road <br />Skitch Plan Review <br />March 20, 2000