My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1991 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
04-15-1991 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 12:00:17 PM
Creation date
12/14/2022 11:57:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
- -' T > <br />wr <br />w:ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 <br />frSnfT ( #2) ZONING FILE #1631-HOMMEYER CONTINUED <br />develop the property, but that he wanted assurance that he could <br />build on the lot in the future if he so wished. <br />1 '■'i. <br />Cohen asked about the size of the lot. <br />Mabusth stated that the lot is 6/iOths of an acre, is <br />located in a One Acre Zoning District, but does have City sewer. <br />Kelley asked how far back from the lake this property is <br />located. <br />Mabusth noted that portions of the property fall within both <br />the 250'-500' and 500' to 1,000' setback areas. <br />p'- <br />Hanson asked how often the City should expect to receive <br />additional renewal Variance requests. <br />Mabusth stated that she could not answer Hanson's question, <br />and reiterated that the Hommeyers are purchasing the property for <br />privacy, not development. <br />Kelley stated that, in his opinion, it is wise for the <br />Hommeyers to continue to renew the Variance, rather than letting <br />it lapse, in the event they should decide to develop the property <br />in the future. <br />Ken Holland, 4119 Oak Street, asked if the same conditions <br />required as part of the approval of the previous renewal request, <br />would apply in this case. He noted that there is a culvert that <br />is maintained by himself and the Hommeyers, to alleviate some of <br />the drainage problems in this area. He wanted to be sure that <br />any future owners of the subject property would be alerted to <br />this. <br />. . s Mabusth advised that the same conditions of approval are <br />for this current renewal application. She said, "The <br />only change is the omission of payment of $390.00 for Park <br />Dedication fee.” <br />There were no further comments from the public, and Kelley <br />the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. <br />"S *: ’• L- • <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend <br />approval of the renewal Variance, subject to the findings and <br />conditions of Resolution #2300, excluding Condition #2. All <br />voted aye. Motion carried. <br />fI : <br />s <br />■4 ^ n <br />■Ty <br />- 4 - <br />li ■M/mi
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.