My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Bayside Road
>
3960 Bayside Road - 05-117-23-22-0016 - 2nd New PID
>
3960 Bayside Rd - 05-117-23-22-0007 - Old PID
>
Land Use
>
00-2563, SKPLAN
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2025 1:30:54 PM
Creation date
10/16/2025 1:30:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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).
View images
View plain text
#2563 -Sketch Plan Comments <br />March 17, 2000 <br />Page 6 <br />Summary <br />1. The Code disallows separation (by sale) of the two substandard undeveloped lots without <br />Council approval. Council would presumably only approve such sale if 1) one of the lots <br />was intended to be sold to an abutting landowner for legal combination; or 2) if Council <br />deemed that the lots were in fact individually buildable. <br />2. It can be reasonably argued that the Code is intended to also disallow selling off the <br />substandard undeveloped parcels from the developed substandard parcel, because as a <br />group the parcels act as a conforming lot, but separately they do not. <br />3. Rearranging lot lines between and among the 1 substandard developed lot and the 3 ... <br />substandard undeveloped lots, at best could result in 1 conforming developed lot and 1 <br />substandard undeveloped lot. This method should only be used if Planning Commission <br />and Council would have granted variances to one of the existing undeveloped lots absent <br />a lot line rearrangement. <br />4. Technically and based on past practice, this proposal to create a second buildable lot from <br />26 acres of which only 9 acres is dry buildable, will require a variance, which by <br />definition makes it a Class II subdivision requiring a plat. The code does not allow the <br />granting of density variances to new plats that create new building lots. <br />The City has varied from this policy in only three known cases since 1975. The first <br />involved a prior density contract in regards to a sewer project. The second was the result <br />of a court order in relation to a condemnation for roadway purposes. The third was the <br />result of City rezoning action to eliminate a marina use on Stubbs Bay. Each of these <br />cases was unique. The only other use of platting where lots have ended up being <br />substandard is for replatting of groups of platted developed properties where no new <br />substandard undeveloped lots are created (Scotch Pine Lane vacation/replat is a recent <br />example). <br />5. The City may set a negative precedent by allowing 9 acres in common ownership in the <br />5-acre zone to be rearranged to create a second building site, whereby either the existing <br />developed lot or the new undeveloped lot will be substandard in area.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.