Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 <br />(#l)r.ONING FILE #1619-raiTEHEAD CONTINUED <br />with subdivisions." <br />Hanson stated that in his opinion, Lyman Avenue is one of <br />the more hczarJous private roads in the City. <br />Kelley said, "You cannot der.y the fact that there have been <br />accidents on that corner." <br />Bellows stated that she was almost struck by a car coming <br />out of the V7hiteheads* driveway. <br />Rowlette concurred that the road is unsafe, particularly <br />when going around the corner. <br />Whitehead said, "If the City wants to make the road a public <br />project and upgrade both Smitn Avenue and Lyman Avenue, that is <br />one thing. It does not make sense to have a road 16 feet in <br />width entering a road 24 feet in width." <br />Hanson said, "I think your point may be taken on that. It <br />seems to me that the issue of access to the existing cul-de-sac <br />has to be addressed." <br />Kelley said, "If the Whiteheads develop this property it is <br />likely that people will put in swimming pools, tennis courts, <br />etc., and the trees will come down. The characteristics will be <br />lost and this site will change dramatically. I would also state <br />that I am not in favor of filling in the man-made pond. In my <br />opinion, that i3 a designated wetland and the restrictions <br />regarding the septic sites are applicable. I also will not grant <br />any Variances to our Codes for the subdivision of this property. <br />The applicant has the option of requesting us to table this <br />.matter, but I have stated my position." <br />Whitehead asked if the Planning Commission would w.alk <br />through each Variance to explain their position for denial." <br />Kelley advised Mr. Whitehead that it is incumbent upon the <br />applicant to provide hardships to substantiate the need for <br />Variances. Kelley stated that in this application, he sees no <br />hardships. He said, "I think you are forcing a bad situation on <br />a unique piece of property." <br />Bellows added, "And you are forcing it for economic reasons. <br />It is our responsibility as Planning Commission members to <br />consider the safety of the c.itizens of this Community. It is up <br />to us to interpret the Codes. You have stated all evening that <br />the only issue is the road. For most of us up here, that is all <br />the further we need to go to recommend denial. There is a <br />serious problem with putting more traffic on a substandard road. <br />- 6 -