Laserfiche WebLink
3 F.M. <br />DER <br />ROAD <br />7:40 P.M. <br />TES <br />76 <br />DER <br />RDAD <br />DAD <br />TONAL <br />RAP <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING G0^f1ISSI(W MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 2, 1976 - PAGE 2 <br />After further study of the Allehburg proposal, McDonald called <br />attention to the proposal showing two foot hi^ banks along the <br />shoreline. Mr. Ml^urg stated that the drawing gives this <br />impression, but that in fact, most of these banks already exist <br />due to the washing away of lower level ground and that the rip- <br />rapping was intended to forestall further erosion. <br />JOHN ALLENBURG, cont. <br />Mr. Dykstra was not in attendance. Discussion ensued as to the PHILLIP DYKSTRA <br />nature of the situation. By all criteria, the proposed subdivi-’. > 3080 NORTH SHOI^ DRIVE <br />Sion is deemed legal, but because of the neighbor's objections, SUBDIVISION <br />the Commission was reluctant to reconmend approval. Chaiiman <br />Pesek read to the Conmission the following letter from Mr. Itykstra: <br />(Dated January 29, 1976) Last week Mr. Van Nest called to say <br />he and Mr. Muhich had talked to Mr. Malkerson about the possi­ <br />bility of the town of Orono acquiring a conservation easement <br />on the one acre parcel resulting from my subdivision. I have <br />discussed this idea with a mnber of people and all have advised <br />me to continue with my request for a simple subdivision. <br />On Monday, January 26, 1 stated publicly to the town council <br />meni)ers my desire to pursue my request for the subdivision. <br />I would appreciate the planning conmission processing my re­ <br />quest with the knowledge of current position. (E^ of letter) <br />Conmissian again e^ressed hope that the Coixicil could <br />find some means to satisfy all parties, including Mr. Dykstra <br />and his nei^ors. Hake moved, Guthrie seconded, that the <br />Planning Ommission reluctantly recomoerid to the Council pre­ <br />liminary approval of the subdivision as proposed, making special <br />note of the neighbor's unanamous objections, ^totion, Ayer (6) <br />- Nays (0). <br />An extended discussion developed regarding the pix^sal to <br />erect a residence on this property. The Conmission at it's last <br />meeting had asked Mr. Johnson to stake the comers of his pro­ <br />perty so members could better sense it's size and shape. This <br />has been done. The Zoning Administrator stated that he had Mr. <br />Johnson prepare a survey showing the location of the proposed <br />building on the lot and that Mr. Johnson obtain a statement from <br />his imnediate neighbor to the south. The survey was presented <br />to the Conmission but the proposed improvements were not lo­ <br />cated thereon. Mr. Johnson stated that he had been unable to <br />secure a statement of approval from the neighbor. The appli­ <br />cant was made aware that should approval be granted, a sewer <br />unit charge would be levied on the property. Dunlap moved, <br />Hannah seconded, that the variance application be tabled until <br />a survey showing the proposed improvonents and a statement of <br />e neighbor's approval or disapproval are obtained. Motion, <br />yes (6) - Nays (0). <br />VINCENT JOHNSON <br />1376 PARK DRIVE <br />VARIANCE