My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-11-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
03-11-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2025 1:42:52 PM
Creation date
1/3/2025 1:41:23 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.
/
368
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
The ^iwiKOfiftMTTirtin and the histone i»c o( the property as one site, as well <br />fts the rnwMnnit cmncfship which supfKxts the use as a single site. leads Council to <br />the foilowuig condusK>fi <br />a. Each of Low !0, 11 and 12 is an existing lot of record None of Lots 10, <br />11 or 12 art conforming in kn w idth or area to the zoning requirements and <br />ntw meet the ('*nc acre KK)' wHlth standard in Section 10 03. Subdivision <br />6 (A-2) required for buildabiliiy of existing sewered lots of record m <br />zonii^ districts of one acre or greater <br />b None of Lots 10. 11 or 12 could be built on without many other variances <br />even if lot area and w idth variances were granted <br />c. Any lot line rearrangement proposed to realign these three parcels into two <br />parcels will result in the final lots not meeting the area standards of the <br />Zoning CcxJe Therefore such lot line rearrangement is not exempt from <br />subdivision, but is classified as a Class II subdivision (Section 11.03, <br />Subdivision 2 65. 2 66) which requires a plat <br />d All plats arc required to meet existing zoning regulations at the time of plat <br />approval Subdivisions may nxH increase the overall subdivision density <br />above the minimum zoning K>t area requirements [Section 11.10, <br />Subdivision 14 j <br />e. As compared to other properties which have been allowed to replal at <br />densities higher than those allowed, other cases involved clear and distinct <br />use of each of the pre-exi.sting properties as separate from the others In <br />the current case, however, m such distinction exists because buildings are <br />over lot lines, buildings on separate lots have made use ol shared sewer and <br />water facilities, the three lots have been used and maintained as a single <br />property, and the three lots have shared a single driveway <br />The fact that the three lots have been kept as three separate tax parcels does not <br />result in an inherent right of the property owner to have three building sites, or <br />even two. A subdivision with significant variances is required to make the <br />property marginally feasible for two building sites. The proposed subdivision <br />results in lots that do not meet required lot stanu i.a <br />Page 5 of 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.