Laserfiche WebLink
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 <br />Smith confirmed the retaining walls were to be repaired with no changes. <br />Nolan asked the purpose of the underground walkway and retaining wall. Crawford explained it was <br />the entrance to the root cellar and basement of the greenhouse and the only outside access to the <br />greenhouse. <br />Schroeder asked why the grass drive did not work. Crawford responded that service and <br />maintenance vehicles that would use the drive would cause it to continually require grass <br />replacement. It would be used to access the back areas of the home including the gardens, tennis <br />courts and pool. Peterson asked why the grass had not been torn up over the years as repairs had <br />been done on a regular basis. Crawford responded the pool was located in a different area. <br />Mabusth reiterated Peterson's comments that much of the hardcover in the 0 -75' zone was approved <br />because of the fact that there was only about 17% in the 75 -250' zone. <br />Nolan noted that only necessary items, not items of convenience, should be considered for the 0 -75' <br />zone. He agreed with the walking path and retaining wall but questioned the drive. <br />Schroeder asked if other options had been considered for the 10' drive such as two asphalt paths with <br />grass between. Mabusth asked about the possibility of connecting a drive to the main driveway <br />instead of using another curb cut. She did not feel members were convinced there was a hardship <br />to support a variance for the portion of the drive in the 0 -75' zone. <br />Smith asked about the septic system issue. Mabusth stated a date is required for the installation of <br />a new septic system since the study on areas to be considered for sewer has been completed and the <br />Bracketts Point area will not be sewered. She asked that Crawford submit a written statement with <br />a date indicated for installation. Crawford responded that the owners were reviewing information <br />regarding sewer and septic and may petition the City for sewer. Mabusth noted that sewer to this <br />property would require a Comp Plan Amendment and would take a long time. <br />There were no comments from the public. <br />Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #1992 as proposed. <br />Discussion continued regarding the proposed variances. Nolan commented that if the 10' drive were <br />removed from the 0 -75' zone, there would be no need for a variance for the drive. He did not object <br />to the remaining variances. Peterson commented that the Planning Commission has denied repair <br />of boathouses in the lakeshore protected area and the greenhouse repair is a similar situation. <br />Mabusth noted the uniqueness of the property and the hardship for the retaining wall at the <br />greenhouse being the only grade level access. Schroeder would prefer to see the drive connect to <br />• the main driveway rather than use the 0 -75' zone. Mabusth indicated an amended plan would be <br />necessary showing there was no increase in hardcover as a result of road paving in the 0 -75' area. <br />The applicant could choose to put the drive into grass or connect to the main driveway. <br />0 <br />