My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2020 3:59:09 PM
Creation date
1/22/2020 9:41:44 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.
/
228
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, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 19 of 46 <br /> <br />power lines, among other things. Another concern, perhaps not having enough information as to what that <br />terrain looks like. For instance, it looked like a heavily wooded area that was not even passable but now <br />he knows that there are power lines there, which tells him he doesn't have enough information to make a <br />decision to approve it. He also thought there may be a better placement for all parties involved for the <br />dock. <br /> <br />McCutcheon stated there's precedence of doing it for a landlocked lot on the other side of the island, so he <br />supports approving it, and maybe between now and when it goes to the City Council something else will <br />happen. The Commission needs to respond to what is in front of them today. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he agrees with McCutheon. <br /> <br />Ressler said the tables have turned and the Commission appears to be in support of the application even <br />though it does not work for the applicant. <br /> <br />Curtis stated there is a motion and a second on the floor. <br /> <br />Ms. Katie Adams, 600 Big Island, asked if J. Marie could pull her application since there are other <br />potential solutions. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she should not. <br /> <br />Ms. Adams said one of the things she sees as a problem is the safety. There is a significant cable there. <br />Anyone who has kids and any boaters that come, they tell them to stay away from that area. By the <br />Commission approving that, they are going to put the general public in safety's harm by providing it as an <br />access point. <br /> <br />McCutcheon noted it will still go to the City Council. The challenge the Commission has is, a lot of the <br />information being talked about is not in the application. Understanding the practical difficulties and <br />precedence set before, the applicant will get a dock to get access to her property. Right now, the only way <br />that's feasible is through that lot. <br /> <br />Ms. Adams asked if it is on public record that the Commission is approving this as a potential option and <br />there is a resolution after the fact in the other meeting, isn't some sort of precedence being created that it <br />is an option that is viable on the table that could be brought forth again. She does not want that. <br /> <br />Ressler indicated the previous application that was placed was the precedence the Commission is facing <br />that helps close the loop on what the Commission was discussing on the application that we started out on <br />and heavily deliberated earlier in the day. There are two things: One, yes, it does; two, this does not make <br />it so, for lack of a better term. The Commission provides feedback to the City Council, and then they <br />make their decision. What often happens is that the applicant is able to change gears and either provide
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.