My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2025 11:42:36 AM
Creation date
12/29/2025 11:29:53 AM
Metadata
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.
/
383
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
APPROVAL OF THE SUB -DIVISION WILL. NOT ESTABLISH NEGATIVE PRECEDENT... <br />as the Mabutsh memo states. <br />Ms. Mabutsh states: "six potential residential units would be added <br />to an alreadtr congested neighborhood." She is referring to paired <br />lots commonly owned. Of the six lots she references: <br />3 properties have clearly buildable, extra lots (one is mine) <br />2 properties have $,.)0,000 eighty foot homes centered on the two <br />lots making it economically unrealistic to add another home. <br />1 romonly owned pair already holds two homes (as I am proposing) <br />And she presents no evidence that our neighborhood is congested. <br />THERE IS NO AVAILABLE LAND ON EITHER SIDE OF MY PROPERTY <br />The lot to the north is fully developed. And Mrs. Taylor, to the <br />south, has no intention of selling a portion of her surplus land. <br />TWO UNIQUE HARDSHIPS ATTEND MY PROPERTY. <br />One, mentioned above, my property has lake on either side. <br />Second, it is the only property in the Shadywood Add,n, for a mile in <br />either direction for that matter, that is next to a high --density <br />development. <br />The lot adjacent to my property on the north has a density of 6.5 <br />residential units per acre. My property has a current density of I 1 <br />units per acre. I am proposing a density of 2.2 units per acre, more <br />in keeping with the surrounding area - particulary the high -density <br />development to my immediate north. <br />This clearly ext-rt.lishes A HARDSHIP UNIQUE TO MY PROPERTY, a hardship <br />noted in my memo to the Planning Commission but apparently overlooked. <br />REVISED PLANS REDUCE HARDCOVER AND SIZE OF BUILDING ENVELOPE <br />Since the Planning Commission meeting I have revised my plans to <br />conform as much as po9sible to the standards and the existing <br />neighborhood. I agree to relocate the garage on lot A and t-ut d+•�n <br />the patio that overlaps the lot line. Furthermore, 1 guarantee my <br />building plans will not, in any way, damage the neighbor's tree. <br />TO BUILD ON MY EXTRA LOT IS A LAND TITLE. PREROGATIVE - A PRIOR RIGHT <br />BASED ON NEI4HBORHOOD BUILDING r�jSTOMS AND RECOGNITION OF PRECEDENCE. <br />Custom and ample precedence has been established by prier Ordinance <br />Amendment and Council resolutions. I am proposing nothing mote than <br />numerous other Orono property owners have done in the past with <br />Council 9pproval (Reference Rxhibits 3 and 4, Hall memo 3/12;86). <br />HAVE 4 HAPPY DAY' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.