My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:28:31 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:23:31 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 19, 2000 C <br />HawTt reconftHui :d the parties meet prior to this application appearing before the City Council to <br />try to resolve these issu^ <br />Smith stated in her view by allowing th [Ration to go before the City Council as a failed motion. <br />the Planning Commission has not completed their job. <br />Lindquist stated in his opinion the unresolved issues that have e.\i^cdT'«M^r a year need to be <br />resolved prior to this application proceeding on to the City Council. <br />(#4) «592 MIKE HILBELINK AND JOHN VOGT, 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - <br />PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 8:25 p.m. - 8:49 p.m. <br />Mike Hilbclink and John Vogt, Applicants, were present. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted <br />Weinberger stated the Applicants arc proposing a lot split of an existing parcel located at 3a0 Stubbs <br />Bay Road North. This property is located within the RR-IB zoning district, with a two acre minimum, <br />this site is located on the cast side of Stubbs Bay Road, with tlic land to the w est of Stubbs Bay <br />road being located in the five acre minimum lot size district. <br />The Applicants arc proposing a front/back lot subdivision which requires greater zoning standards <br />for properties that do not have immediate road access. Lot 2 would not have direct access to a road. <br />This property docs have adequate land area to make this subdivision work, with both lots having <br />acreage that exceeds the required minimum standards. Weinberger stated one lot would consist of <br />appro.ximatcly four acres, with the other lot consisting of approximately 10 acres. Weinberger stated <br />three acres are required for a lot that docs not have direct access to a road. <br />Weinberger stated Lot I will be approximately 2.73 acres dry buildablc. with the wetlands not <br />impacting upon the proposed building pads for either lot. The main issue with this application is the <br />access to the two properties, with front/back subdivisions requiring that an outlot be created as an <br />PAGE 21
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.