My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-01-1972 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
05-01-1972 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2023 1:45:52 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 10:41:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
VILLAGE OF ORONO <br />Regular .ieeting of tiiu Planning Commission, <br />May 1, 1972 * <br />The Planning Commission met on the above <br />date with the following members present: <br />Chairman pro tern Soutawortn, Elliott, <br />Gasca, Hays, ilerfurta, Kullberg, Wicaolls, <br />Ryerse, Searles, and Van Nest. Absent: <br />Ciiairman Poisson. <br />Kullberg moved, Searles seconded, that the <br />Minutes of the regular meeting of April 17, <br />1972, be approved. Motion, Ayes (10) - <br />Ways (0). <br />John Geraardsoa represented himself in a <br />petition for a division of Lots 5 § 6, <br />Block I from Lots 11-12-13-14, Block 1, the <br />entire lots constituting one parcel at the <br />present. <br />O <br />Mr. Gerhardson explained he sold Lots 11- <br />12-13-14 with a house on it on a contract <br />for deed in 1969 and he continued to get a <br />tax statement with the property combined, <br />iiis reason for t'»e division was chiefly <br />to obtain separate tax statements for tiie <br />property he sold off and the property <br />retained, ile said he liad no intent to build. <br />discussuion followed on the legality of <br />alloi<ring sucii a division for tax purposes <br />only, reserving any right to use tne same <br />for a building lot. Members conceded tie <br />lots did not lend themselves to being an <br />ideal lot wiien combined since tney fronted <br />on two streets but they were also reluctant <br />to divide off Lots S 6 6 as tliey would only <br />be 98' X 125’ or 12,250 sq, ft., nowiiere <br />near tne one acre requirement. <br />Kullberg moved, Soutiiworth seconded, that it <br />be recommended the division be allowed only <br />for ilr. Ger<iardson's intention of obtaining <br />a separate tax statement and in view of the <br />fact that should sewer come in he would be <br />faced with a large assessment. ?Iotion, <br />Ayes (8) - Nays (2). Searles and Van West Nay. <br />Charles Roberts represented himself in a <br />rjdivision at 4545 Watertown Road, Section 31, <br />Parcel 3900, whereby he wishes to divide off <br />6% .acres nortn of Watertown Road from <br />Ih :acres lying south of Watertown Road. <br />7:30 P.M. <br />fHWUTES <br />DIVISION <br />Tonkawa Road 8 Park Ave. <br />11 <br />DIVISION <br />4545 Watertown Road <br />(Continued)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.