Resolution 1247 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• �� Clt� o� ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 1247 8 . An e�isting driveway easement serving as sole access to adjacent T�act £, of RLS 1468 runs across the south 14 ft. of Lot 9 and enters the cul-de-sac of West Lafayette Road beside the existing driveway serving the home on Lot 9. This easement was created in 1971 by Rand when Rand sold Lot 9 to Hepp and retained Lot 8 together with this easement. This easement was not approved by the City at that time , but was recognized by the City as the access for Tract B, RLS 1468 when lots 8 & 19 , Shorehills , were subdivided by Kern Hoppe in 1976 . Consequently, there are already two residential driveway curb cuts within the 40 ft. frontage of Lot 9, which frontage is less than the Zoning Code Standard of 140 ft. for one residence. 9 . The existing residence on Lot 9 has been served with both public water and public sanitary sewer. Only one water unit charge and one sewer unit charge has been assessed to this property. There is no water stub and no sewer stub provided for any second unit on the property. This indicates the historical intent of previous councils and the property owner to have only one residential unit on the property. • 10 . Lots 8 and 9 , Shorehills , were originally combined in one deed from Maxwell to Rand dated 5-17-46 , which deed included a restriction that only one one-family residence ever be erected on Lots 8 and 9 combined. This restriction was lifted by District Court Order on October 27 , 1971 , after Hepp purchased Lot 9 , but not Lot 8 , from Rand. The Hepp house on Lot 9 was existing in 1971 . A new house was later built on Lot 8 , after that 1ot had been rearranged in RLS 1468 . 11 . Proposed Lot 1 does not adjoin the public street. All ingress , egress and access to proposed Lot 1 would be provided by private easements utiliz- ing the existing driveway as shown on Exhibit A. Consequently, there would then be three residences having all access located within the same 40 ft. frontage on the cul-de-sac , thereby creating potential traffic conflicts and too much traffic entering the public street from too little private frontage. 12 . Proposed Lot 1 does conform to the minimum Zoning district requirements for lot area, lot width and existing building setbacks . 13 . Proposed Lot 2 contains more than 1 . 0 acres in total land area exclusive of the existing and proposed driveway easements , but this area is divided into two non-contiguous pieces by the proposed driveway easements intended to serve Lot l , as shown on Exhibit D : S a) That portiori of Lot 2 west of the driveway easement contains approximately 30 , 800 square feet or . 70 acres . This area is PAGE 4 OF 11