My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 10:24:49 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:37:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
548
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A <br />iS <br />MINUTES OFTHE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 27,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Anus Abukhadra, applicant, stated that his family also wished to preserve as much of the land as possible, but need <br />6 lots within the property to accommodate 6 family members. <br />White stided that he was more concerned by the loss of the dramatic views caused by reshaping the land than curb <br />and gutter. <br />Bruce Vang, Orono Building Inspector, asked whether the guest house required additional acreage as a back-lot. <br />Oaffion pointed out that if the guest house acreage requirements and 150% back-lot requirement were cumulative, <br />the guest house requires 6 acres to support it; whereas, the dry buildable is closer to 5.2 dry buildable acres. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if the Council could allow the applicant to subdivide to build one house, then delay the rest <br />of the construction until the applicant has gone thru the process with the MCWD to consider other alternatives to <br />curb and gutter. <br />Oronberg reiterated that, due to certain slopes, they may still need curb and gutter to retain the hillside in some <br />areas. <br />McMillan stated that she feared more land disruption might occur due to natural erosion if the applicant did not <br />install curb and gutter in this instance. <br />Tom Brown, 760 South Brown Road, stated that his issues pertain to the closure and regrading of Fox Street. He <br />questioned why the new access road could not be moved back where the existing pond is in an effort to oreserve <br />this beautiful parcel. He asked why an environmental study had not been performed. <br />Mayor Peterson pointed out that the size of the property allows the applicant to subdivide the parcel into 6 lots. <br />Oronberg reiterated that the setbacks to the pond, as well as, the septic sites all play into where the lots and road <br />must be placed. As proposed, the sight lines for the road will be improved. <br />Jurgens interjected that the Planning Commision made a recommendation that there be one driveway access for all <br />Page 7 of 17 <br />i <br />iiiilaairaaaste~-J»^rT"^
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.