My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-18-1979 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
08-18-1979 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 9:27:35 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 9:20:49 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.
/
366
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
Planning Commissioners/August 14, 1997/p.3 <br />Wc realize that this proposal will have minimal impact on most of our neighbors. None of <br />the houses will be seen by existing L>Tnan Avenue property owners because we have <br />carefully placed the building pads on the lots for the privacy of everyone However, the <br />road and cul-de-sac will have an impact on Margret and Brano Stankovsky ’s lot. Their <br />property is surrounded on two sides by our property and they are on a substandard lot of <br />approximately one acre The new road and cul-de-sac will be on their eastern lot line, on <br />a previously vacated street We have tried to maximize their privacy from the house that <br />will be built on Lot 1 by voluntarily increasing the required setback from their back <br />property line from 30 feet to 50 feet, and the area in between, except for their drainfield, is <br />wooded. <br />We spent a considerable amount of time try ing to treat lots 1 and 2 as back lots so that a <br />shared driveway could be used at the Stankovsky ’s property line instead of the road and <br />cul-de-sac. It would have had less visual impact than the road. But we could not meet the <br />set-back or lot size requirements and we were told that the Commission has never granted <br />a variance for area requirement As with many sites in Orono, septic systems control most <br />of what can be done to a given piece of land .. and that w as certainly true in our case. In <br />addition, the shared driveway would not have given you the cul-de-sac you requested. <br />Our intentions, in the design of the subdivision, were to keep the feel of the neighborhood. <br />All of us chose to live on Lyman because we like what it is—quiet, wooded, home to <br />wildlife and wildflowers. We’ll miss it. <br />Please call or stop by over the weekend if you would like to eyeball our proposal in person <br />or to talk to us about it. We welcome your thoughts. <br />Sincerely, <br />0 <br />Tracy Whitehead <br />IsJuJxh&d <br />P.S. Yesterday afternoon when / went to City Hail to deliver this letter, Mike pointed <br />out a discrepancy involving our septic .w stem layouts that frankly was a surprise to me. <br />The septic systems on each lot were niH In he same area as on the 1991 Preliminary <br />Plat, but each had been slightly reci..ft^ u^ed or repositioned to meet a change in lot <br />lines. Mike was concerned that they might not work with the changes and therrfore <br />wrote the staff report to reflect that Last evening, / talked at length with our septic <br />system engineer who believes that it can be easily resolved. My surveying company is <br />now in the process of verifying his suggestions. If it is resolved, / will bring you a copy <br />over the weekend so you will have a chance to study it before the meeting. I sincerely <br />apologize to all of you for this last minute problem. It was certainly unintentional.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.