Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, May 8, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) <br /> number of curb cuts on the County road,he realized that it made less sense to jeopardize the <br /> vegetation and impact the neighbors to do so. <br /> Broitzman stated that, at this point,he would prefer to run the driveway as proposed off Heritage <br /> Road. <br /> McMillan asked how many trees,in his estimation,would be lost to run the driveway from <br /> Heritage. <br /> Broitzman stated that roughly 6+trees of larger size would be removed to run the approximately <br /> 250' driveway to Heritage Drive, and showed some photos of the staked wooded area. <br /> Murphy stated that,he too,had been of the same opinion as Council Member White, since his last <br /> site visit. He indicated that he had come to the same conclusion that the driveway might be better <br /> off where it is than making so many changes to the property to move it.Placed in front,Murphy <br /> acknowledged the driveway would have far less impact on the neighbors as well.Murphy <br /> maintained that in his estimation,the proposed screening along the driveway off Heritage Drive <br /> was inadequate to screen the at grade driveway. He pointed out that they would be destroying a <br /> relatively undisturbed area and creating all kinds of drainage issues to boot. Murphy rationalized <br /> that in order to accomplish the elimination of one curb cut,too many other impacts were being <br /> raised,plowing through the undisturbed area,putting in fill,creating a new culvert,etc. He asked <br /> if a culvert would be necessary at all if the driveway were not going in off Heritage Drive. <br /> Kellogg explained that the culvert would only be necessary if a driveway were going in. <br /> Murphy commented that enough was enough. While he recognized Broitzman for making <br /> adjustments to address some of the concerns of the neighbors and City,Murphy maintained that the <br /> applicant was not entitled to put whatever he chose on the site.Murphy�eiterated that he did not <br /> feel it was worth it to plow the back side all up and that he still saw no hardships to allow this <br /> proposed plan to move forward. <br /> Broitzman pointed out that the current driveway runs along the property line and allows for little <br /> screening.He indicated that he believed his hardship to be that his proposed footprint is essentially <br /> the same size as his neighbors. <br /> White questioned whether the size of the home was out of scale given the footprint. White however <br /> did believe the applicant had overmanufactured the area of the lot.He urged him to reconsider <br /> using the current driveway position,pointing out that this would save him a great deal of money, <br /> rather than tearing up the rear and dealing with all of the drainage and landscaping issues. White <br /> maintained that the undisturbed back side had value. <br /> McMillan stated that the applicant's proposed driveway could be planted more naturally to provide <br /> screening and was hesitant to ask to change the road now. <br /> PAGE 5 of 17 <br />