My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2021
>
10-11-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2021 6:04:14 PM
Creation date
11/8/2021 5:50:28 PM
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.
/
320
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 <br />Monday, September 20, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 2 of 2 <br /> <br />Gettman would not support it, noting just because other lots in the area have been given the privilege of <br />subdividing does not justify these two additional lots for subdividing. The question is where do they <br />stop…the next two lots, the next four lots should also be put down to half-acre. He would not support <br />rezoning of these two lots or any other lots as it is already overcrowded, there is not easy access, and the <br />easements already exist. <br /> <br />Kirchner noted some Commissioners would support and others would not. <br /> <br />McCutcheon noted it is a lot with mixed zoning and they should fix that. He is in support of it. <br /> <br />Libby is also in support of it and does not share Gettman’s concerns because there is such a limited <br />quantity of lots, unless there were teardowns and combinations of lots. <br /> <br />Erickson agrees with Libby. To his mind the best land-use policies are those which conform with <br />geographic features and the waterway through the middle is one of those and would be a good choice for <br />division of the two lots and for different zoning uses. <br /> <br />Gettman asked to show the map of the area on screen. His main concern is the scope creep; he noted they <br />have a problem with the ability to meet the zoning requirements at Casco Point and now they are <br />expanding to the east with that same issue. He clarified that same zoning they are currently talking about <br />is the very same zoning they are always having trouble with on Casco Point. His point is why would they <br />continue down a bad path? <br /> <br />Ressler respectfully said the issue on Casco is usually parking, streets, and hardcover rather than lot size. <br />He thinks one-half acre is a reasonable lot size. <br /> <br />Bollis agrees that Casco Point has a lot more non-conforming lots. He was concerned about this creeping <br />to the east but with the geographical lagoon, he does not see the reason for changing that other area’s <br />zoning. Overall he would be in favor of changing the zoning. <br /> <br />Kirchner clarified if it were to change to LR-1C it would mimic Casco Point’s zoning at this time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.