My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-18-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
09-18-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2023 2:43:28 PM
Creation date
9/28/2023 4:30:44 PM
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.
/
647
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
Zoning Memo #2 <br />March 16, 1995 <br />Page 5 <br />Any recommeiKlaiion of approval must include the following conditions: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />If access drive to combined Lots 3 and 4 at Frederick Street remains as is. <br />applicant shall create easement over portion of driveway that intersects Lot 1 in <br />favor of combined Lots 3 and 4. <br />Applicant depending upon the resolve of location of existing services to the <br />existing residence, applicant shall either agree to reconnect for new sewer and <br />water service to the existing residertce or create utility easements over Lot 1. The <br />City would encourage the applicant to consider reconnecting so as not to further <br />encumber Lot 1 with easements. <br />Applicant to grant an easement over the municipal sewer line in the northeast <br />comer of combined Lots 3 and 4. <br />Resolve of access to Lot 1 either to approve the existing curb cut at Casco Point <br />Road or to require connection to 20 ’ wide driveway outlot. <br />Upon application for building permit, future owner shall make payment for a <br />sewer connection charge based on the 1995 fee schedule of $1.284.50 plus a SAC <br />charge of $850. A water unit has already been paid against the property. <br />The subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market <br />value of the property. <br />Staff would ask the applicant what his intentions are concerning resolve of the various questions <br />surrounding the boathouse stnicmre in the lakeshore yard. Applicant’s contractor had completed <br />an expansion of an upper level without the benefit of building permits in the 1970s. During an <br />after-the-fact review of the violations, the applicant was directed to remove the upper level and <br />to top the boathouse with an upper level deck. The matter still remains unresolved.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.