Re: subdividing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 5, 2007 Page 5 (c) Front/hack lot subdivisions. Flag lots and easement back lots shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Here an "easement back lot" already exists in the form of the Ringer Property, and one can conclude that it would continue on a grandfathered basis. However, with the ordinance's absolute prohibition of easement back lots, one cannot envision the City exacerbating the problem by adding one or more additional illegal easement back lots. A "front/back lot" division cannot occur either, because that would require the "creation of an outlot to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road." The Ringers cannot create an outlot over property they do not own, in this case the Steinhafel Property, to serve the back lot or lots. Conclusion. In conclusion, the Steinhafels are requesting the preservation of the status quo as to the Ringer Property and its driveway access. The current access arrangement and the limited use thereof have been in place for more than 60 years. There is no reason to change the driveway access at present. Further, the applicable Orono ordinance prevents change. The Ringer Property is an easement back lot, whose existence, but for its grandfathered status, would not be allowed today under applicable ordinances. Under those ordinances, the creation of an additional easement back lot would be illegal. Further, a front/back lot division cannot be created, because there is no possibility of outlot access to a public or private road. This letter, then, is sent so that the City has all of the history and facts bearing on a possible subdivision request involving the Ringer Property. This letter is also sent to let the City know that the Steinhafels are opposed to any subdivision of the Ringer Property. Sincerely, � .�—., _,� o n B. Wins on Enclosures