Laserfiche WebLink
June 16, 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />street through the 50-foot building setback area. In the Figge <br />case, the 20-foot driveway parcel is "straight." The only thing <br />that is curved is the 12-foot paved portion of the driveway <br />within the 20-foot straight driveway itself. The reason for <br />stating that the driveway may not be "curved" in Resolution 2652, <br />referring to the 20-foot strip for the driveway, is that an owner <br />could run a very long driveway somewhat parallel to Sugarwoods <br />Drive thus consuming a great quantity of land in the 50-foot <br />setback zone when what Orono intended in Resolution 2652 is that <br />the 20-foot permitted driveway access be in a straight line from <br />the street to the house so that the 50-foot restricted zone would <br />not be consumed by the 20-foot wide driveway. <br />The reasons for permitting the small amount of fill as a <br />matter of interpretation or variance are that an unnatural <br />condition, namely, the fence line which was allowed to go to seed <br />so that sucker trees came into existence and blocked drainage <br />exists. This is through no-fault of the Figge's. The topography <br />of the land, the placement of the houses, the provision for the <br />perimeter drainage and utility easement around the lots <br />substantiates that in limited circumstances Orono understood that <br />slight variations in existing drainage patterns might be <br />necessary to carry out proper drainage for residential lots. We <br />submit that this is such a circumstance and that the small amount <br />of fill be permitted to improve the drainage situation. <br />RGM/ssc <br />cc: L. Cramer Co. <br />Lan-De-Con <br />Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge