My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-16-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
03-16-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:37:22 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:36:06 PM
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.
/
246
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, May 19,2003 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(«9 «W3-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCTSCUS BASTIAENS, <br />CoBlinued) <br />Rahn agreed that once the certiftcate of occupancy was granted, the City would lose its <br />leverage. <br />Gaffron indicated that the guest house can require a CUP. <br />Rahn questioned what conditions the City could attach to the CUP, suggesting they require <br />an escrow of funds to ensure the removals take place. <br />Boeder stated that they would be willing to post a bond or make a deposit of some kind. <br />Mrs. Basliaens pointed out that, although they own 6 acres, they were unable to subdivide <br />the property due to easements and the comer lot location near Femdale and Lydiard. <br />Gaffron indicated that it was the applicants’ intent to subdivide their property into three <br />parcels; however, due to ROW'S, Lydiard, and easements, the applicant's lot was <br />significantly reduced down to Us usable 2 acre form. <br />Bremer stated that, as long as a sunset provision and escrow were required, she would be <br />comfortable recommending approval of the application. She asked if the applicants could <br />retain the accessory buildings aAer the Uvo year period if they removed the plumbing from <br />them. <br />Gaffron slated that they could retain the accessory’ space without plumbing. He questioned <br />whether the City was getting a better bargain by obtaining a contract with the applicant that <br />they will remove the space after two years. <br />Mrs. Bastiaens stated that she would be willing to sign a contract to remove the buildings <br />after two \ ears. <br />Gaffron believed the escrow would provide the city with adequate leverage. <br />Hawn and Rahn indicated that they could not find adequate hardship to support the <br />application and were concerned with sc ting a precedent. <br />Zugschwert stated that she would find hardship, due to the fact that the City's easements <br />and ROW'*s infringed upon their usable property or ability to subdivide. <br />Bremer reiterated that she could support the application with the escrow and sunset date <br />clause. <br />PAGE 31 of 39
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.