My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-19-1984 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
11-19-1984 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2023 2:56:48 PM
Creation date
12/7/2022 1:26:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
I <br />» <br />.5 <br />.'1 <br />I <br />MINUTES OF THE WANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 3 <br />1879 MALCOLM MACKAY <br />1145 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />7:48 - 7:57 John Taylor represented Mai com MacKay. Assistant <br />Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate <br />of mailing and the affidavit of publication* There <br />was no one present from the public. <br />Taylor stated this a matter of subdividing an 18 <br />acre parcel for tax purposes into one 12 acre <br />parcel and one 7 acre parcel and having the 12 acre <br />parcel adjoining the property which would lead to <br />potential sale. <br />Gaffron noted he had received the septic testing <br />report for the existing house on Parcel A and there <br />is adequate room for future septic needs if <br />existing system fails. There are some wetlands <br />shown on the plat maps, leaving on Parcel A, 5.6 <br />dry acres and Parcel B, 4.4 dry acres. There is an <br />easement of 50' width for private roadway. There <br />is a road that serves the MacKay house and two <br />houses to the west of it. <br />Adams questioned the possible rearrangements and <br />subdivision/variances that might be brought up in <br />the future because of the size of the parcels. <br />Adams further stated thi'*; he assumed that the <br />ultimate plan must be to combine the two parcels <br />and then further subdivide the property. <br />Taylor stated ho was unaware of any future plan. <br />Rovegno asked Gaffron if a Flowage and Conservation <br />Easement was needed for the wetlands. <br />Gaffron stated that they are wetlands and so we <br />should take a Conservation and Flowage Easement now <br />at the time of subdivision. The wetlands were <br />added in at the last minute by the surveyor. On <br />the original survey the lakeshore was shown closer <br />to the house, which has been determined incorrect. <br />Kelley clarified to Taylor what is needed. Asking <br />for a Conservation and Flowage Easement means the <br />surveyor will have to describe the boundaries of <br />the wetlands. The applicant would be responsible <br />for the legal description.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.