Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 <br />telling the City what his plans are. Gaffron said a possibility is to have a policy with <br />goals without the use of a list and formula and ask the developer how he will obtain the <br />goals. This, however, would give no guidelines. Hawn asked if this could present legal <br />problems. Gaffron said that may happen. <br />Lindquist indicated that each lot is reviewed individually and sees the need to review <br />each plan as they are all unique. <br />Gaffron cited the example of the Sugar Woods Development and what could have <br />occurred on that property. Schroeder said the enormous amount of tree saving was <br />accomplished in part because the property is sewered. Buffering on Brown Road was <br />also a good decision in that development plan. McMillan agreed that public good results <br />• from buffering. Schroeder indicated that it is conceivable that a developer or homeowner <br />may not want a buffer. The Dickey property was cited as an example. Schroeder said he <br />would like to see the ordinance provide some "teeth" by which to ensure that a buffer is <br />provided. Wilson agreed that buffering would aid in preserving the rural feel of the <br />community. <br />Hawn asked if the present resolution refers to any subdivision or a subdivision of at least <br />three lots. Gaffron said a Class III Subdivision includes three or more lots. A Class I1 <br />Subdivision is a lot which is split off from an existing property. There is also a metes and <br />bounds division. Lindquist thought the policy should refer to subdivisions of two or <br />more lots. <br />McMillan noted that the Brook Park Realty Subdivision for townhomes is an example <br />• where buffering is limited by the right -of -way due to wetlands. The buffering will be <br />11 <br />