My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-19-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
09-19-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 11:22:01 AM
Creation date
12/27/2018 11:21:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING <br /> Monday, September 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The applicant's proposal is to rezone their specific plot to an RPUD, with, in many cases, lot sizes <br /> less than 25 percent of the minimum required standard, and setbacks over 25 percent shorter than <br /> minimum required standards. <br /> This request has no compelling justification by the owner and goes against the general welfare of <br /> the applicant's other residential neighbors. It greatly threatens to impair the purposes and intent of <br /> our ordinances that are specifically drafted to preserve the essential and irreplaceable character of <br /> our community's wetlands, and as importantly,the overall health and water quality of Long Lake, <br /> which should be noted is already under great stress. <br /> It is clear to us residents that the proposal for urban zoning in a historically designated wetland area <br /> will clearly adversely impact the environment,the immediate neighborhood, as well as the broader <br /> Orono community,which relies heavily on the stability and consistency of the Planning <br /> Commission's enforcement of current preservation regulations. <br /> It is well established that building area standards that are significantly less restrictive than those <br /> otherwise commonly present in an area threaten the essential character of that neighborhood. In <br /> addition,relaxing land use standards on wetland areas through selective variances can threaten the <br /> long-term viability of all community wetlands through precedent. <br /> We, along with many of our neighbors here tonight, believe the applicant's request for rezoning and <br /> variances is a threat to the essential character of our neighborhood and community. <br /> Many of us have selected to live in our neighborhood based on its low density character. We abide <br /> by the current regulations and expect our neighbors to do the same. We see no compelling reason <br /> as to why these neighbors should be granted an exception to do otherwise,especially when it is a <br /> privilege to them and a detrimental impact to us and the environment, especially including the <br /> water quality of the lake. <br /> The applicant will incur no hardship in development within the existing zoning rules and allowing <br /> us to continue to enjoy the neighborhood in its current character. The same cannot be said to be <br /> true otherwise. The applicant bought this parcel with full knowledge and understanding of its <br /> development limitations. There is no hardship associated with having them abide by current <br /> regulations. <br /> We view the rezoning application as an attempt to obtain special privilege and maximize profits on <br /> their land sale. The only thing clear about their intent is increasing the zoning density to make it <br /> more attractive and valuable to a third party buyer. <br /> In our opinion, any commentary on the applicant's sketch plan appears premature,as site layout, <br /> configuration,and building character can change dramatically depending on the end beneficiary of <br /> this request. The only thing certain, however, is the new owner's ability to demand future <br /> variances,based on their purchase of a site that,by description, allows density far in excess of this <br /> application. <br /> In closing, I will say that my family and many of the immediate neighbors are in very strong <br /> opposition to this proposal. It is unjustified. It will negatively impact the rural nature of our <br /> Page 14 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.