My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
06-11-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2024 11:28:43 AM
Creation date
11/5/2024 11:25:56 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.
/
380
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
T' <br />City of Orono <br />Page Two <br />April 12,1990 <br />Orono. Yet, that drainage ditch is used to collect waters from <br />other properties, and connects to the tile line on the "Ned Dayton" <br />property.We understand that the City does have an easement for the <br />drain tile through that property.It appears evident that the <br />existing drainage system,the drainage ditch through the Jentilucci <br />property connecting with the Dayton drain tile system is not <br />adequate during periods of heavy rain. Under a letter of agreement <br />issued by your city attorneys, on behalf of the City of Orono, dated <br />July 26, 1985, the city agreed to make such repairs as were required <br />on the tile line on the Dayton property. <br />(d)It is our position that the Planning Commission and the <br />City Council should not grant the variance as presently proposed. <br />My clients would consider withdrawing their objections if the <br />location of the proposed new structure were closer to the old site; <br />if there were enforceable provisions that precluded any further <br />change in lot elevations; and if the city would secure an easement <br />over the drainage ditch in the Jentilucci property; and would <br />enlarge the drainage systems so as to be able to handle larger <br />quantities of water.We understand that the city may benefit from <br />the sale of the property,there being assessments against the <br />property, in favor of the city. But, we object to the 2180 Prospect <br />Avenue property being improved at the expense of neighboring <br />property and property owners. The city has set minimum lot sizes <br />and set back requirements and should not grant a variance from same, <br />where granting of said variance in all probability cause harm to <br />adjoining properties. <br />My clients have worked hard and invested funds to improve their <br />property and are most concerned that the city permit no action which <br />would put their property and its value in jeopardy. We believe it <br />is possible to improve the adjoining premises (2180 Prospect <br />Avenue), but only if actions are taken to avoid changes in elevation <br />and to improve the capability of the existing drainage system to <br />handle the flowage. We suggest that no action be taken with respect <br />to approval of the variance until satisfactory arrangements can be <br />made with same. <br />■’hank you for your consideration.Please provide notice to me and <br />o Mr. and Mrs. Jentilucci of any and all City Council and/or <br />Planning Commission meetings involving the subject matter. <br />Sincerely yours, <br />heikki^^M associates, ltd. <br />PYjf Neil DlxW^^kila <br />NDHidlk <br />cc: Mr. and Mrs.Alex J. Jentilucci <br />Mr. and Mrs.Bob Johnson
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.