My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 8:02:13 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 7:49:04 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
242
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 21, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Thiesse stated the Planning Commission would like the Council to understand what was told to the <br />Planning Commission and what their decision was based on. Thiesse asked whether the width of the road <br />should be identified in the motion. <br />Barnhart stated in terms of the driveway width, that is part of the project that is being recommended for <br />approval. Barnhart stated the additional approvals are outlined in Staff s report, and at some point in the <br />future the applicant will need to request a variance from the wetland setback, a variance from the wetland <br />buffer, and a conditional use permit for filling in the floodplain. <br />Schoenzeit moved to amend his motion to add the condition that the neighboring property should <br />not incur any expenses to remain connected to utilities. <br />Thiesse noted there will be an easement down the property line of this subject project. <br />Schoenzeit stated the Whites are connected today and they should remain connected after the project and <br />that there should not be any cost to them. <br />Thiesse asked what the easement is along the property line. <br />Barnhart indicated it is a standard easement. <br />Schoenzeit stated if the utility company wants $3,000 to reconnect the gas, the Whites should not have to <br />pay for that. <br />Thiesse noted the applicant is not moving the utility lines and that the applicant is not responsible for <br />replacing it. <br />Landgraver stated in his view that condition might be overreaching and could cover any number of <br />situations. <br />Leskinen stated she is not sure that is within the scope of the Planning Commission's authority. <br />Amendment dies for lack of a second. <br />Page 18 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.