My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Brown Road South
>
120 Brown Road South
>
Land Use
>
04-2998, SKPL
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2026 2:21:10 PM
Creation date
4/2/2026 2:19:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
Wetland Maps are found by the delineator. <br />Tree and/or Woodland Impacts <br />Portions of the site are heavily wooded. The same 0-75' tree protection standards that apply to lakeshore <br />would also apply to areas within 75' of the creek bank. <br />#2490 -VanEeckhout Sketch Plan <br />May 12, 1999 <br />Page 5 <br />Archaeological Site Proximity <br />SHPO would be contacted for a review of this site if a preliminary plat is submitted. The high hills <br />overlooking the creek are a natural feature that triggers an archaeological review to determine whether <br />archaeological sites may be present. <br />Bluff Impacts <br />A cursory review of the topography map indicates that while slopes exceed 30% in many areas ofthe site, <br />most such slopes do not rise the requisite 25' above the creek level in order to be defined as bluffs. There <br />are many 'steep slopes' on the site (by definition averaging 12% or more) that will trigger the need for <br />careful review of any grading plan proposed. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1. Does Planning Commission find any justification for supporting the rezoning of this property <br />from RR-lB 2-acreunsewered, to R-lA 1-acre sewered? Is the 1975 rezoning a justification <br />for honoring such a request? Isn't such a rezoning in direct conflict with Orono's goals and <br />policies for the rural area? <br />2. Whether or not the property is rezoned, is the probable lack of suitable drainfield sites to <br />serve more than a few lots, justification for developing with sewer? <br />3. If the site does in fact contain 11-plus acres of dry buildable land exclusive of proposed road <br />and driveway outlots, and given the non-contiguity of the dry buildable due to wetlands <br />and the creek, does this suggest that development via a PRD might be appropriate?Ramrhr <br />that area credit for wetlands is no longer available even if the property is sewered, regardless of a <br />rezomng. <br />Staff Analysis and Recommendation
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.