Laserfiche WebLink
April 24, 2006 � <br /> Page 2 <br /> As to the "deceiving"nature of the submitted drawing, please note that this is the <br /> survey that was accepted by the City in 1989. Outlot C is shown, as are Outlots A and <br /> B. No one is trying to fool anyone here. <br /> � Concerning the applicable setback line: <br /> 1. The plat dedication fanguage does not refer to Outlots B or C as streets. <br /> 2. The resolution approving the plat (No. 2239) refers to a "right of way outlot <br /> for the purp�ses Qf providina a future connection." There is no mention of"street" or of <br /> "road." <br /> 3. The private road declaration of 1988 (Doc. No. 5441457) mentions, in the <br /> last recital paragraph, that Outlot C "is intended to provide future roadway connection to <br /> the plat road of the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, FOXWOOD," but then the rest of the <br /> document is silent as to both Outlot C and Outlot B. Neither Outlot is declared to be a <br /> public right of way. <br /> 4. A "right of ingress and egress" over the Outlots is created by the <br /> applicable Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, but again the words "street" and <br /> "road" are not used. <br /> We therefore submit that there is no road or street, and that the ordinary side <br /> yard setback of 30 feet is applicable, and it is from that setback that we are requesting a <br /> variance. We have stated our reasons for why there should be a variance from this <br /> setback in the Lindblooms' application. <br /> �� <br /> ,�,:�r�-�;:'�'s% <br /> Further buttressing our argument that there is no street from which to measure �:� �;� <br /> the setback, the City's zoning code's definition of"street" is a dedicated public right of �'���-'' <br /> �...:� <br /> way "which affords a rima means of access to abutting property." Outlot C, a,heavily t,;�-;.y�_:::�,, <br /> wooded property, will never afford this property primary access. Even Outlot A's !� ;� <br /> creation and purpose is limited by the City's form of road declaration. Paragraph 1 of �y�;�..•.:-:: ��y <br /> the Declaration states, as to Outlot A: <br /> F... �::.y <br /> �:.;:.._';:. � <br /> 1. That the owners do hereb acknowled e the existence of said rivate road {' �"' ���`' <br /> Y g p �, <:, ���.;�,; <br /> easement and the existence of the private road, which is not a publicly dedicated `���� '`�r� <br /> roadway, and that the City of Orono has no obligation to maintain or service said ���:��• ��t>�:� <br /> �, '`�3 <br /> private road, and that the City of Orono does not intend to acquire or open said (� _ <br /> private road as a public roadway. t'�-"r� ���� <br /> ��:..€i,. �: <br /> Well, if that is the situation with Outlot A, how can Outlot C, which is not even �:���''1''�1�:� <br /> declared a private roadway in the same declaration, rise to status of"street" as to which �'�'���f: <br /> the 50 foot setback would be applicable? <br />