Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 <br />(#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED <br />Whitehead stated that ha may be willing to negotiate the <br />road issues if he knew that the rest of the proposal would be <br />acceptable. <br />Moos stated that in her opinion the road is the major issue, <br />but that she would not approve any Variances. She added, "Staff <br />has conceptually drawn one alternative, there may be others." <br />Whitehead said, "I understand where tho Planning Commission <br />is coming from. I do not mean to lecture the Planning <br />Commission. However, the* Planning Commission does not have the <br />ability just to not do something because they don't like to. <br />There are laws and ordinances. When we qualify for a Variance, <br />certainly you have some disiretion, but it is limited. I think <br />for you to concern yourselves with the hardship that is presented <br />by relatively minor aspects of the Code is an obligation of the <br />Planning Commission. If the laws allow you to have four lots, <br />whether somebody is going to build tennis courts is not your <br />concern. It is a concern whether we comply with the Code." <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to recommend <br />denial of the preliminary subdivision for Marc and Tracy <br />Whitehead, based on there being no demonstrated hardship for the <br />Variances requested, and that what is being proposed for Lyman <br />Avenue poses a threat to the public's health, safety and welfare. <br />Motion, Ayes“5, Nays-0. Cohen abstained. <br />(#2)ZONING FILE #1570-CHUCK DOWNEY <br />2665 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />Chuck Downey was present. <br />Kelley re-opened the Public Hearing on this matter at 8:10 <br />p.m., and asked Mabusth to present the information pertaining to <br />Mr. Downey's application. <br />Mabusth stated that Staff met with Mr. Downey at the site to <br />discuss alternatives to the tiers of retaining walls, which were <br />too intense and did not fully address the drainage problem. She <br />said, "Mr. Downey is now proposing to construct a 25 lineal foot <br />retaining wall with a height of three to three and a half feft. <br />The wall will channel drainage along the lot line where it will <br />then fan out toward the lake. In order to preserve mature trees <br />and an existing boathouse in the lakeshore yard, a retaining v/all <br />approximately 58 feet in length, and four to four and half feet <br />high would be constructed. The City Engineer has requested that <br />additional 'deadmen' be added to the installation of the wall to <br />provide moce support. Mr. Downey also intends to remove the <br />existing steps and replace them with cement pads that are three <br />feet wid^s and would be trimmed with timbers. Hardcover within <br />the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas would be reduced." <br />- 8 - <br />I