My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-20-1983 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
06-20-1983 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2023 3:51:32 PM
Creation date
12/7/2022 2:54:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
f <br />^INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1983 <br />4p <br />MAURICE WAGENER & <br />CEDRIC DETTLOFP <br />Charles Street <br />Vacation <br />#750 <br />Public Hearing <br />7:45 - 8:15 PM j <br />Page 2 <br />■-Mitsui <br />- . <br />® represent the Woodhill Country Club, <br />application Present from the audience for this <br />^®ftificate of mailing and the <br />publication. Mabusth stated that she <br />but hfn by the Wageners and the Dettlof fs <br />cinh^^ 'writing from the Woodhill Country <br />Club . Mabusth noted that the actual vacation would <br />begin at the southern line of Lyman and go down to the <br />northern right of way line of Woodhill. <br />Mabusth noted that she had received a call from a <br />Tracy Whitehead, who had no problem with the <br />un?t.” additional <br />that the purpose was not for a new <br />subdivision. He noted that the Dettloffs had joined <br />if Wageners in the petition for the vacationor Charles Street. <br />Susan Emwell, Woodhlll's representative, noted the <br />two concerns Woodhill has: ® <br />1. Woodhill is leary that it might provide an <br />additional building site. Woodhill doesn't <br />want that additional 33' used for additional <br />development. <br />2. Would the City consider: IE you vacate the 33' <br />would you be willing, in the event that Woodhill <br />wanted the develope that area in the future, would <br />the City consider waiving the 66' street <br />requirement to 33' which is all they need now for <br />Street purposes for that development? <br />Ms. Emwell stated that the Woodhill's Board of <br />® chance to review this request <br />Planning Commission table the <br />application until Woodhill's trustees had a chance to <br />meet. She stated that as soon as the trustees <br />Wageners application that they would notify the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.