My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 4:28:14 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 4:28:04 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.
/
244
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
. � , <br /> Gaffron stated Staff is not sure that this road would connect anywhere else. <br /> Zullo stated it appears from Exhibit C that there is not a house on one of the lots. � <br /> Curtis noted that is an aerial photo from 2000 and that there is currently a house on the lot. <br /> Rice questioned why the City would have approved the lot layout originally. <br /> Gaffron stated it has to do with the topography and other site characteristics. Gaffron stated <br /> originally the iwo back lots were created with two separate access points off two separate roads. <br /> Gaffron stated this type of subdivision is not unusual for the City but that the configuration of the <br /> lots is somewhat unique. <br /> Zullo indicated she would like to see the road meet the City's standards for the number of homes <br /> that would be served. <br /> Berg commented the paving of the road could be a requirement of approval. Berg inquired <br /> whether there is a homeowner's association. <br /> DeSantis stated currently there is not and that he presently does the maintaining of the road. <br /> Berg stated it appears likely that the road would need to be paved if the subdivision is approved. <br /> � � Kang indicated she would support the application but would like to see the road blacktopped. <br /> Zullo recommended the wetland survey be completed to verify the amount of dry buildable land. ' <br /> Gaffron stated setback variances would not be necessary but a variance to the lot width <br /> requirement would be necessary. Gaffron noted Lot 1 is approximately 50 to 60 feet wide and <br /> � would require 200 feet in lot width, and Lot 2 is 120 or 130 feet in width and would also require <br /> 200 feet in lot width. <br /> Rice questioned why the City would approve something so substandard if they have lot width <br /> requirements. <br /> Zullo stated the ordinance probably relates more to new developments. <br /> Curtis noted this is a two-acre zone. <br /> Berg stated the applicants is unable to split these lots without variances and that the Planning <br /> Commission is basically giving some direction to the applicant on whether they feel what they are <br /> proposing would be acceptable. <br /> Gaffron stated as long as you have two acres and the house meets the setback requirements,the <br /> lot width would not be as critical in that type of situation as in other situations. <br /> Gronberg stated a driveway could also be run on the northerly lot on the north side and a house <br /> constructed further to the east. <br /> Berg commented she is not opposed to the strangely configured lots. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.