Laserfiche WebLink
Page 7 <br />'� Q MACKALL, CR OUNSE c� MOORE <br /> Mr. Bruce rlalkerson ' �anuary 12�, 1981 <br /> Page Four <br /> by any reasonable limitations suggested by the Cit�� of Orono <br /> ' in order to exercis� such access in a way that is consistent <br /> with Orono lakeshore planning and which would have the minimum <br /> impact on the Lake and surrounding properties. ' <br /> �1 � 13) Mr . Hepp desires the approval of his <br /> S�'�a.,,� proposed subdivision even if "lakeshore" access is denied other <br /> �,�Z�� than to tl�e bay or pond on the north side of the property. <br /> 14) There are no existing deed restrictions <br /> which prohibit the suhdivision of Lot 9 (any such restrictions <br /> a9KL 1_,f-�being, in any case, irrel�vant to the determination of the <br /> p�✓rotls r�� city) . <br />�tJ"'�.�� 15) The City Administrator has indicazed that <br />�5 i?.�1 there is no problem �vhatsocver involved in providing an <br /> /Q� additional sewer and water connection for the ne�•�ly created <br />^� ��O>�''�` parcel. <br /> � 1G) There has been no evidence presente3 to <br /> the Planning Cora,-�ission or the City Council indicating that <br /> �M,�r+ t�e newly created parcel with lakeshore access wovld cause or <br /> �P create any undesirable environmental impact either on the Lake <br /> or the rest of the neighborhood . <br /> � 17 ) West Lafayette Road is a street with � <br /> extremely Iow traffic volume. There have never been an�� <br />��� traffic or access difficulties reported in connection with <br /> the private driveway serving the residences which are �art <br /> • of R. L. S . No. I31. . <br /> 18) Permitting the requested sub3ivision would <br /> not create any additional traffic or access problems, as the <br />; � � J'd physical characteristics of the access available to the occupiers <br />� � �,�/� of Mr. Hepp' s former homestead and to Mr . Hannah would remain <br /> ��! fi��'�7� unchanged. <br />,��4�'` �' <br />'j��� by 19) There are various other areas in Orono <br /> where two or three residences or more are served by a single <br /> private driveway or road, and where an approved subdivision <br /> �q�' plan has contemplated the service of multiple residences by <br /> � private driveway or road. <br /> 20) The opponents of the proposed subdivision <br /> have not presented any evidence that the approval of the sub- <br /> ���A��� division will adversely affect their enjoyment of their <br />