My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Brown Road North
>
820 Brown Road North
>
Land Use
>
78-317, SUBD
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2026 12:46:31 PM
Creation date
4/9/2026 12:33:45 PM
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.
/
296
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
PAGE 7A <br />TO: Henry F. Muhich, Zoning Administrator, and Pl-inniniz Commission <br />FROM: A. P. Olson, Asst. Zoning Administrator <br />DATE: March 17, 1978 <br />SUBJECT: #317 - The Farm at Long Lake #3 7 <br />Subdivision <br />RE: The Planning Commission special request for policy guidance from <br />the Council as reviewed at the meeting held March 16, 1978 <br />General Council concensus was that the function of staff and the Planning <br />Commission is to review questions of policy and to make recommendations <br />to the Council for final determination. Notwithstanding this, the <br />Council indicated the following: <br />1. Private reads are desirable as an alternative to public roads for <br />visual and rural character reasons as well as maintenance responsi- <br />bilities, but all roads should be constructed to minimum standards <br />and criteria for public safety and for permanent ease of maintenance. <br />The City Engineer should make recommendations as to technical <br />requirements. <br />2. The City has had continuing problems with unsupervised easements <br />to lakeshore and has philosophical problems with extending lakeshore <br />"rights" to inland properties. The staff cr . legally provide <br />language to restrict any such easement to whatever use or intensity <br />should be desired as a matter of policy. In this particular <br />instance, and because the developer is agreeable, the issue may <br />be avoided by physically stopping the easement at a reasonable <br />distance from the shore, such as 5 ft. or 20 ft. or at the edge <br />of the conservation easement, or:' <br />3. Conservation easements may include compatible uses and horse <br />pasturage may be such a use in certain circumstances. The Planning <br />Commission should make a finding a4 to the acceptability or lack <br />thereof in each specific instance and recommend accordingly. If <br />horses are allowed, a determination should be n. de as to proximity <br />to the shoreline or other water course for protection against fecal <br />pollution. Should horses be allowed, fences are obvious'.y necessary <br />to protect the animals and the nt-ighboring properties. The Planning' <br />Commission should note that a variance is required to pasture horses <br />and erect fence, but the variance may rr,t be contrary to ordinance <br />intent. <br />b. Private easement platting, on site acceptability, legal document <br />language or provisions necessary to implement polio• are technical <br />matters which should be determined by staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.