My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-1979 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
06-11-1979 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 1:39:58 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 1:38:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
•h <br />May 15, 1979 <br />Enervest Builders <br />325 West Lake Street <br />Subdivision/Variance <br />Page 2 <br />Septic Variances: <br />A.Setback Variance for drainfield from <br />Required: <br />Proposed: <br />Variance: <br />75' <br />60' <br />15' = 20% <br />B.Drainfield Variance <br />Required: <br />Proposed: <br />Variance: <br />10,000 s.f. <br />6.000 s.f. - 7.000 s. f. <br />4,000 s.f. - 3,000 s.f. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 21, 1979 <br />Planning Commission reviewed the implications of the original intent <br />of the 2-acre zoning district and proposed lot area for the newly <br />created lot. Staff has been asked to determine the size or the <br />wetland and status of lot at 2650 Tonkawa. A Public Information <br />Meeting has been set for June 11, 1979. <br />STAFF NOTE - MAY 30, 1979 <br />We have determined the wetland to be approximately 6,225 s.f. <br />(83' X 75'). The wetland is not an artificially created one as^ <br />originally thought for we have located a culvert under ^ty s <br />i"in«ew!“ihn’r^uireIent”urelSnaJe% <br />septic site but the inspector advises the 50' X 150 area at the <br />west edge of lot affords suitable septic area. <br />Staff has inspected the lot at 2650 Tonkawa and determines the lot <br />to be unbuildable until sewer is available. The acquisition of <br />property with severe slope problems will in no way improve the <br />condition of Lot 1. I think it is important to remind Planning <br />Commission that this is a lot realignment subdivision. The <br />owner of Lots 4 6. 5 could have presented a very strong case for <br />a lot area variance^ and based on recent Council decisions, probably <br />received approval. In this application, we have a far more efficient <br />use of land.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.