Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD AUGUST 24, 1992 t <br />2112 SUGARWOODS DRIVE - CONT. <br />Mabusth noted based on applicant's information that they would lose <br />more trees with the straight alignment. She reported she received. <br />a phone cal I f rom Dav i d Ah.l ers, ne i ghbor to the north ' i n wh i ch he <br />expressed opposition to the proposed drive as his privacy will be <br />affected and that drive w I I have •a- visual impact from his <br />residence because of the alignment between both drives. <br />Callahan noted the builder obviously- was notified of. the <br />requirement but did not understand the severity of the request. He <br />stated this issue is a civil,war between the Planning Commission <br />and developers of this property. <br />Goetten asked if there was some way to alleviate future requests. <br />Mabusth explained the original intent was to save the trees and <br />minimize the impact in the front street setback area. She felt the <br />straight aligned driveway may actually work against the intent of <br />the PRD. She stated she would like ,to see the Planning Commission <br />reconsider the issue. She added the straight aligned drive has <br />presented problems in dealing with the contractors who feel the <br />whole intent of the PRD was to maintain the natural buffer and <br />screen residences from street activities and maintain overall <br />natural setting. <br />Jabbour noted after - the -fact applications rubs everyone the wrong <br />way. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, <br />driveway realignment for Scott Larson of 2112'Suga <br />to note that the _CounciI is in 'agreement with <br />expressed by Planning Commissioner Bellows, but <br />should look at what is best for the site and the <br />nays 0. <br />to approve the <br />rwoods Drive, and <br />the frustration <br />added that they <br />ecology. Ayes 5, <br />Goetten warned Larson to gain approval prior to beginning a project <br />when building in Orono. <br />( * #9) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SECTION 9.21 PUBLIC NUISANCE <br />SECTION 9.23 PARTICIPATION IN NOISY PARTIES <br />ORDINANCE #108, SECOND SERIES <br />It was moved'by Jabbour, seconded by <br />#108, Second Series to reinstate the <br />Section 9.21 and readopt the Noisy <br />9.23. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />M <br />Goetten, to adopt Ordinance <br />public nuisance definition as <br />Parties Ordinance as Section <br />