My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-09-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
12-09-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2025 12:35:47 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:56:06 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.
/
310
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />fact that the City Engineer ’s comments had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested <br />that the Planning Commission table the application. Gaffron laid out a series of seven <br />recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider: <br />1) Gaffron suggested the Planm'ng Commission table the application to allow staff and City <br />Engineer time to consider whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff, applicant and <br />the applicant’s consultant time to confer. <br />2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshore <br />yard should be restored <br />3) Commission should provide direction as to whether the deck on the lakeside of the <br />house might be approved if a fonnal variance request was made <br />% <br />4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely <br />removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75’ zone, and removal of the gravel parking <br />area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to remove <br />the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. Gaffron indicated that staffs <br />perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for, should not <br />be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances. <br />5) Applicant should be advised to work with adjacent property owners in reaching a <br />suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding Ae “accretions" east of tfi^; <br />road <br />6) The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairway into <br />the City right-of-way. Gaffron questioned whether angling the stairway toward the <br />driveway might avoid the encroachment <br />7) Because it is likely the necessary work would not take place until spring, the applicant <br />it <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.