Laserfiche WebLink
Page 11 <br /> • M A C K AJ L L. C� O U N S E d� M D ❑ R E <br /> Mr. Bruce Malkerson January 1.2 , 1981 <br /> Page Eight _ <br /> ��� <br /> 3) There will be no demonstrated effect on <br /> �„1�'� � traffic in the vicinity, as the area is already such a low <br /> �� traffic neighborhood. <br /> I have had an opportunity to review the Report <br /> ��� dated December 30, 1980, prepared by Alan P. Olson , the Orono <br /> �� ✓� City Planner. Mr. Olson has identified two features of the <br /> , �+'f e o proposed subdivision �ahich vary from the requirements of the <br />�� `� � � zoning ordinance. Interestingly, riparian lake access is not <br />��j � an aspect of nonco formity. <br /> j�� ar�"5tu�d��1 tsSv�.u� 'I��'�t. <br /> � `�~ � <br /> a � ��r" I wish to take issu� coith rir . Olson' s conclusions <br /> that the newly created lot does not meet the Code requirements <br /> G � <br /> � relating to lot width. I should, p�rhaps, firs� note that Lot 9 <br /> �as it is presently constituted does not meet lot �oidth require- <br /> ��tl ' ments set out by Mr. Olson, even though it is a very �vide parcel, <br />!�� ��� 2 . 8 acres in size. A careful reading of the statutory def inition <br />`�� �''",�rr/` of lot width I believe contradicts r1r. Olson ' s interpretation <br /> 51� of the law in this case . The Code , � 30 . 040 , defines "Lot <br /> r� �9idth" as follows : <br /> �/✓'i'Y "The maximum horizontal distance between <br /> ��{ �� � )„p.� �,'�. the side lot lines of a lot measured <br />�*r �1�`�,�;��fi a`1,��,5 parallel to the f ront lot line and at the <br />�'S �I��,S �r�a^• rear of the required front yard. " <br /> ,��5 <br />����►'� First, it is unreasonable to construz the front lot line to be <br />' ��' ��''� � orrly the 40' section which enters into the cul-de-sac . Second, <br /> ` t�` even if that construction were reasonable, the definition of <br /> _ width permits the measurement tr� be made o� the "maxinum <br /> horizontal distance between the side lot lines , " to tne rear of <br /> the 35 ' front yard area. I submit that language clearly autnor- <br /> izes the measurement to be made at the �aidest point behind t;�e <br /> � front yard line . <br /> �s�' . <br /> Based upon the aUove analysis , it is our opinion <br /> that it would be indeed unreasonable to deny to P7r. Hepp approval <br /> of his good faith request. <br /> I would be happy to discuss this further with <br /> you at any time. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> I�'lACKALL, CRnUP1SE b MOORE <br /> � ,A !, �- � <br /> +1 ` � f <br /> ,�1 � �/Q�_.�" • i:�,'�,�_t, <br /> By �, _ __ . <br /> FYan¢ P . .7��ne, �ZII � <br /> 1 � i � <br /> � � <br />