Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 <br />• <br />( #2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) <br />A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt it should only be expanded <br />10' with the access located as originally planned to reduce the size of the road. He feels <br />the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a two <br />lot subdivision. He feels the main hardship is to the Stankovsky oronerty. He believes <br />economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and <br />does not view lack of sewerine as a hardship. <br />Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property. She is concerned with the <br />impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway easement for <br />her property. Gaffron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot <br />extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots i and 2. The ramification of this <br />scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to <br />this, such a drivewav would be devastating to the land due to the basin and steep stoves of <br />the area. Gaffron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He <br />indicated the driveway could be rebuilt and a cul-de -sac placed to the northwest but would <br />have major impacts on the neighborhood. <br />The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said it <br />was intended to mainly avvly to Lakeshore lots and is geared for more dense <br />• neighborhoods. Gaffron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, <br />which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and <br />cul-de -sac in order to eliminate the back lot situation. <br />• <br />Stankovsky questioned whether a 50' wide driveway would be required. He noted that a <br />50' road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. <br />Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site. <br />Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the <br />middle of the site and would be difficult to do. <br />Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3 -lot subdivision. He said <br />he cannot approve the elan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the <br />problems regarding the cul -de -sac, driveway, and wetlands. Smith and McMillan agreed <br />with Lindquist. <br />Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4 <br />even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work <br />as presented in his opinion. <br />8 <br />