My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-26-1998 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
05-26-1998 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2012 4:16:02 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 4:16:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 <br />( #21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued <br />Jabbour responded that Council was almost split. He wanted to have Council member Goetten <br />present as she lives in the area. <br />Flint indicated that if the issue comes up again, there will be a notice sent to the neighborhood. <br />He suggested leaving the issue up to Woodhill to bring back to Council if they find the need to <br />do so. Malkerson agreed that it would be best to provide notice to the neighborhood if Woodhill <br />decides they need to have further consideration on the access issue. <br />( #22) COUNTY ROAD 6 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION AND ROBERT AND JULIE <br />HANNING SUBDIVISION PLAN AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH <br />Moorse reported that the subject property is 10+ acres in the 5 acre zoning district. When the <br />County Road 6 project begins, the County will acquire a portion of the property for right -of -way. <br />The property will still be 10+ acres but the way the home is situated on the lot creates a problem <br />in configuration for a subdivision. The issue came up early in the discussions of the County <br />Road 6 project, and Council indicated they would consider some sort of approval of a second <br />buildable lot on the property, if the right -of -way would reduce the property to less than 10 acres. <br />The issue has become that the lot they want to create, because of the location of the existing • <br />house, is less than 5 acres even though the right -of -way does not reduce the property to less than <br />10 acres. Normally Council hasn't approved lots less than 5 acres in a new subdivision. A <br />survey showing a potential subdivision indicates that one lot would be 4.17 acres. The Hannings <br />wish to keep a meadow with their existing home. Even without the right -of -way taking, the lot <br />would be substandard. To create two 5 acre lots, gerrymandering the line is necessary, the <br />meadow is lost, and the lot goes behind the existing buildings. Since Council had indicated a <br />willingness to consider options, the Hannings are looking for direction as they are currently <br />dealing with the County. <br />Jabbour stated that Council took the position that the City would not cause the Hannings to have <br />an unbuildable lot because of the right -of -way acquisition. He did not understand that the <br />location of the building would be a problem. He asked about obtaining additional property from <br />an adjacent parcel. Moorse responded that there is an NSP easement along the back of the <br />property. <br />Kelley asked how the property would have been subdivided without the County right -of -way. <br />Hanning responded that he had the property surveyed 6 -8 years ago by Coffin and Gronberg, but <br />is unable to find the survey that was done. Moorse confirmed that the property is 14 acres but <br />only 10+ dry buildable acres. <br />0 <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.