My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-07-1979 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
05-07-1979 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 1:38:52 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 1:38:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
February 13, 1979 <br />H.R, Johnston <br />925 Willow Drive South <br />Subdivision <br />Page A <br />#45*7 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 23. 1979 (Cont.) <br />The application was tabled subject to Mr. Johnston coining to an <br />agreement with Hendel Estate <br />1. New access site at Willow Drive to be obtained. <br />2. Width, length and placement of road easement to western <br />property line from cul-de-sac to be determined. <br />a) width - Planning Commission requires a 50' easement <br />b) length: <br />1. cul-de-sac at original garage site <br />2. cul-de-sac at Lot 2's driveway further west <br />3. cul-de-sac at edge of west property line <br />c) placement - Planning Commission requires 26' from wetlands <br />STAFF NOTE - MAY 1. 1979 <br />The Planning Commission Chairman and staff have agreed to bring a <br />late entry, the H.R. Johnston appl'*cation, to the May 7, 1979 <br />meeting because of a very brief agenda. His enclosed letter reviews <br />his position and reference is made to some form of agreement with <br />the Hendel family. I have not received the soils report but that <br />need not hold up preliminary approval of the subdivision. Staff <br />has reviewed the septic test, the inspector finds no serious concerns. <br />His report will be ready for our meeting night. The applicant has^ <br />asked for various considerations that appear to conflict with specific <br />ordinance requirements and current policies. We will review those <br />points sited in the letter: <br />1. Entrance Location <br />A. Applicant - continue using existing one until fourth house <br />is served. <br />B. Policy - If more than two homes are served a different review <br />standard is applied. City Engineer states driveway should be <br />moved further north. (See letter of April 20, 1979)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.