My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/24/1989
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/24/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:48 AM
Creation date
7/15/2025 11:55:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
7/24/1989
Retention Effective Date
7/15/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
318
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
'4^ <br />Oversized Accessory Structurei <br />July 7, 1989 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Exhibit E is a study of lot sizes in Orono's various zoning <br />districts. This information is partially from the 1983 Common <br />Ownership Study, and partially from a recent study conducted by <br />staff. The significance of the information here is that in the <br />1/2 and 1 acre zones, 2/3 of the existing developed lots are <br />substandard for their respective zoning districts. For the most <br />part, these zones are already subject to hardcover regulations, <br />and the 15% lot coverage standard will further restrict <br />development on many of the smaller properties. <br />In the 2-acre zones, about 1/4 of the substandard lots have <br />been sewered. However, it is significant to note that of 1,100 <br />developed properties in the 2-acre zones, 410 or 37% are less <br />than 2 acres in area. On these properties, and even some of the <br />2 acre properties, forcing tennis courts to meet principal <br />structure setbacks will have an effect on limiting potential <br />drainfield sites. Staff suggests that disallowing tennis courts <br />from required side or rear yard areas may work at cross purposes <br />with our intent of keeping alternate drainfield sites available <br />on unsewered properties. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Staff would recommend that Council spend some time <br />discussing the following issues, and direct staff to make any <br />necessary revisions for final ordinance adoption: <br />1. Should tennis courts be included in a lot-TCOvmrage <br />calculation, dependent upon degree of opaqueness?J <br />2. Should tennis courts be subject to principal structure <br />setbacks in side-and rear yard or is something less than <br />that acceptable? <br />3. Should 750-1,000 s.f. structures be J.5* from the lot <br />line or only 10'? <br />4. Is there any reason why barns, stables, and greenhouses <br />should not be subject to the same requirements as other <br />accessory structures? <br />5. Ai.y other concerns?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.