My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-19-1981 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
10-19-1981 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
2/15/2023 11:50:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1981 Page 2 <br />Point <br />Lvisio] <br />SETER <br />>nka <br />Lane <br />L Use <br />irianc( <br />iiiii]. <br />Goetten stated that this slab was placed within the 75* <br />setback area and was very unattractive. She felt that this <br />was a perfect place for a boat ramp. <br />Applicant again stated that he couldn't get his boat down <br />there if he had wanted to in the first place. <br />Rovegno stated that the hay bales should be placed along <br />the shoreline. He felt that the debris pile was unsightly. <br />Rovegno asked Mabusth if the applicant shouldn't have a <br />conditional use permit for the retaining wall and a building <br />permit for the gazebo. <br />Applicant wanted to know if the City was going to go in <br />everyone's back yard and penalize them for not having <br />building permits on every structure every constructed? <br />He felt that it wasn't fair just to penalize him and not <br />penalize others. <br />Planning Commission explained that they only deal with <br />the current applications before them. <br />^vegno felt ' that the applicant had centered the drainage <br />in one area. He felt that this means of protection for <br />the shoreline was not feasible. <br />Goetten moved to deny the conditional use permit and <br />variance application of Richard Speeter subject to the <br />following findings and conditions: <br />1 - Council to consider review of drainage study. <br />2 - Applicant to submit walkway and open space <br />easements before the next Council meeting. <br />3 — Hay bales to be placed immediately along the <br />shoreline. <br />4 - Council to reconsider the original application <br />to be opened for review if signed easements are <br />not received by the Council meeting. <br />Hammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (0). <br />McDonald asked the applicant if he was going to place <br />hay bales along the shoreline immediately. Applicant <br />stated that he would. <br />Richard Speeter then asked the Planning Commission <br />members to explain individually why they denied his <br />application. <br />- She noted that the slab was in the 75' <br />setback area. Also that this was the second "after <br />application within one year. Her meeting <br />with him stating that he had an erosion problem and <br />telling him that he would need permits for any <br />improvements he had in mind. <br />SPEETER (CONT.) <br />■■ <br />. ^ <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.