My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-16-1990 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
01-16-1990 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 11:11:38 AM
Creation date
12/1/2022 11:10:53 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE tl486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED <br />court meets all zoning requirements. <br />Kelley observed that a variance is really not required to <br />proceed with the tennis court. <br />Mabusth said that depended on the Planning Commission's <br />interpretation of the various sections of code she has asked them <br />to review with this application. Mabusth said that due to the <br />new accessory structure ordinance, a lot coverage variance may be <br />required. Mabusth said that lot coverage for an out lot was not <br />specifically addressed. <br />Kelley indicated that he would have preferred to see the <br />proposal for the tennis court included with the original <br />subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been <br />initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. <br />Chadwick, he would not have allowed the creation of the outlot in <br />that location. <br />Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could <br />appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court <br />or recreational facility for the future owners of the <br />development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the <br />tennis court as proposed because that location is least <br />obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his <br />main concern regarding this recent proposal is that it is after- <br />the-fact. He said that if a recreational area is going to be <br />created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons <br />benefitting and using the facility. <br />Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does <br />have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and <br />their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. <br />Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis <br />courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact <br />than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had <br />concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for <br />governing the use of the tennis court. <br />Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek <br />tennis court being used by non-residents. <br />Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the <br />beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she <br />would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of <br />the preliminary plat. <br />Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in <br />tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great <br />empathy for the neighbor. <br />Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that <br />one court would preclude the need for having courts on the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.