#1686 Scanned File - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1686 September 12, 1991 Page 4 Review Exhibits A-1 and c, Mr. Burger's property consists of 2 separate parcels, a property to the north side of the Luce Line consisting of 4.22 acres that is currently landlocked. For the past 10 years Mr. Burger has attempted to achieve access to this site via easements from private adjacent property owners or from the City of Orono along southern boundary of Bederwood Park running along the north lot line of the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Burger has been unable to file a lot area variance because he has not been able to acquire legal access. In the current proposal he proposes the combining of the 4.22 rural property with a 2+ acre parcel on the south side of the Luce Line, the Parcel referred to as C-1 meets the minimum 2 acre contiguous requirement for a rural property at 2.16 acres dry. Parcel C-1 may be developed as the rural building site with principal and alternate septic sites. The 4.22 acre parcel to the north side must be legally combined to satisfy the 5 acre density requirement. Mr. Burger has agreed to file a special lot combination recognizing the property as one building site (C + C- l). The total 6.84 acre site would be sold as one unit. The major concern for proposed lot C + C-1 is access to the building envelope on the south side. The C-1 site is restricted by the location of the designated wetland. Review Exhibit C, note with the Bayside Landing plat that the rural 5 acre site achieved access via a private drive that intersected the designated wetland. The subdivision involved the granting of a variance for land alterations involving filling and grading work within the designated wetland. In preliminary discussions with the applicant, staff has strongly urged Mr. Burger to work with the neighbor to the immediate west to achieve access via an existing private drive. The applicant has been advised of the limitations of an application that involves encroachment of a designated wetland when other alternatives for access exist. It should be noted that based on Section 11.03, Definition 24 that vehicular easement areas must be excluded from the lot area of each lot. If the applicant proceeds with the filing of a formal subdivision application that involves encroachment of the wetland, Burger must provide written documentation that all adjacent property owners have refused the granting of an access easement. Staff has also asked the City Attorney to comment on the City's obligation to provide access to a landlocked property. During preliminary discussions with the City Attorney, it appears the City has no obligation to provide access to a landlocked property but that it is really up to the developer or owner to acquire legal access. The City Attorney's office will provide a written opinion on this matter at a later date.