My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
9/22/2025 11:45:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
9/28/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/22/2025
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.
/
303
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
Zone File #1301 <br />July 14, 1988 <br />Page Three of Four <br />to move north 150 feet, leaving about 4.5 dry, buildable acres within lot <br />2. Based on this configuration, Lot 2 would not be further subdividable <br />under the two acre unsewered zoning. Planning Commission should then <br />discuss whether a lot width variance as measured at the 50 foot setback <br />from County Road 19 is appropriate, and should discuss whether or not the <br />east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 should be straightened out rather than <br />gerrymandered, as is currently proposed. <br />2. Is Outlot A intended for immediate development as a single <br />residential lot, or is it strictly to be held for a future subdivision? If <br />it is going to be subdivided in the future, what configuration does <br />Planning Commission feel would be most appropriate? Given that <br />determination, .s there any need to dedicate future accesses with the <br />current subdivision? <br />3. Topographic map was not provided. Is a topographic map critical <br />to this Subdivision Application? <br />Discussion - <br />The tested drainfield sites and proposed building site on the property are <br />250 feet or more east_ of County Road 19. In walking to the rear of Lot 2 <br />around the north end of the wetland, it was apparent that portions of this <br />property have been us:,d as a dumping ground for many years. Perhaps the <br />best thing that could happen to this prcperty would be development into 2 <br />acre lots with subsequent individual owners cleaning up the dump sites. <br />For the record, staff would note that most of the junk on the property wi l l <br />have to be hauled out and not buried on the site. <br />kewise, you will note the excessive amount of outside storage on the <br />property, including vehicles and building materials. The existing house is <br />currently rented, but upon completion of the subdivision it will be sold <br />to a new owner, and presumably the storage will disappear. A further <br />comment: If you plan to walk to the rear of the pr:)pe.rty to see the <br />building site fir lot 2, there is a pathway that generally follows the edge <br />of the wetland and it was dry the day I walked it, but wear your hiking <br />boots. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Staff would recommend approval of thij subdivision, subject to resolution <br />of the issues noted above. If Planning Commission does recommend <br />preliminary plat approval based upon the proposed configuration or one <br />similar to it, such a recommendation for approval should incorporate tr <br />following condit'_ons: <br />1. Payment of appropriate park fee for Lot 2. <br />2. Place specific stipulations on Outlot A that define the reasons it <br />is being approved as an outlot rather than as a separate Lot 3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.