My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-12-1979 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
03-12-1979 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:39:27 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:39:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
it <br />)LZER <br />’olnt Rd. <br />ERMIT <br />) <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 12, 1979 <br />Page 4 <br />m <br />=y>'i.v <br />Mr. Neklch stated that he was not familiar with <br />any provision in our code preventing the lights, <br />however, the Smerling's property would also be <br />Illuminated and he did not see how "that sort of <br />illumination can be condoned on a lakeshore <br />property". <br />Mr, Nekich stated the reason the damage (landslide) <br />occurred on the Smerling's property was: <br />ALEXANDER HOLZER <br />2677 Casco Point Rd. <br />COND. USE PERMIT <br />#436 (Cont.) <br />1. <br />2. <br />Vegetation was trimmed too close. <br />Unusually heavy rains which will probably <br />not occur again for many years. <br />He felt this position was supported by letters from <br />James Robin, Landscape Architect, and Lester Kelley, <br />Kelley & Kelley, Inc. He felt as Mr, Robin's letter <br />suggests the situation could be solved by a subsurface <br />structure - "certainly a project of much less magnitude <br />would have accomplished the same task", <br />Glenn Cook stated that the "idea" is good but he would <br />need a profile view to analyze it. He stated that he <br />is referring to just the piping that he is going to use <br />to get the water from the top of the hill to the bottom <br />and discharging it out at the bottom in such a way not <br />to harm the lake. He has not taken the wall into account <br />as part of the drainage plan. The only significance of <br />the wall in as far as the drainage plan is concerned is <br />that it will allow the water to get back into the catch <br />basin. The drainage system would work over 70% of the <br />area without the wall. He stated that without knowing <br />the design of the wall (footing depth) it is impossible <br />to determine if the wall is effective erosion control. <br />It was his opinion that having the structure within the <br />75' setback does not gain anything. On the other hand, <br />he did not see a great advantage to taking the wall down. <br />If the Planning Commission feeling is that the wall should <br />not be at that point, it should probably be lowered to <br />ground level and then used as a retainer with the new wall <br />being built complying with the 75' setback.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.