Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1983 Page il <br />Q ULRICH (CONT) <br />■;.;:V-. <br />.^-5:: - <br />” =5e( <br />'- > ' <br />#761 DOUGLAS SMITH <br />3237 CASCO CIRCLE <br />VARIANCE <br />■' . . . . . . . . . . . .mm..T- » <br />hm <br />- V., <br />© <br />Mabusth stated that she had never been made aware of <br />any other alternatives to muskrat problems from the <br />DNR. She noted that this seawall method was an <br />acceptable method to the DNR. <br />Callahan noted that the Council minutes of July 28, <br />1980 reflect that there are no other methods for the <br />muskrat problem. <br />Goetten moved to table William Ulrich's application <br />pending receipt of input from the City Engineer, the <br />DNR's "other methods", and the neighbors. Goetten <br />would like to inspect the other sites in Orono that <br />have seawalls to see if the seawall solved the <br />problem. Also for staff to check out the drainaqeway. <br />McDonald seconded. Vote; Ayes (4), Nays (1). <br />Adams minority opinion - Adams noted that he felt that <br />the problem Mr. Ulrich has with the muskrats is very <br />urgent. He noted that Mr. Ulrich has a very well <br />thought out plan eliminating the safety problem he has <br />on his property and to table the application may be <br />creating a safety hazard. Anyone can step into one of <br />the muskrat holes and break a leg or a small child could <br />fall into one of those and drown. <br />Mr. Ulrich stated that he did fill in the holes caused <br />by the muskrats. <br />Mabusth noted that when she took the application in it <br />appeared to be a simple lot of separate record and it <br />did not meet 80% of the standards. IVhile doing the <br />review she found a problem of common ownership. <br />Two neighbors were present for this application. <br />Jane Remien and Pat Spilseth. The builder was present <br />for Douglas Smith. <br />Sime asked if there wasn't a common ownership problem <br />would staff have any other problems with this <br />application. <br />Mabusth stated that if this was a lot of separate <br />record, staff would still have a problem with this <br />application. <br />Goetten asked the neighbors if they had any comments. !j|^j <br />Pat Spilseth stated that she would be opposed to this <br />variance application because their lots are so close <br />together and the noise level could be bad. <br />Jane Remien stated that she too would be opposed to the <br />variance application because cf the lots being so <br />close together. She stated if the lot isn't right <br />size how can you justify building on it?J