09-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) A gentleman in the audience said the road is private. He felt h should only be expanded 10' with the access located as oriirinallv planned to reduce the size of the road. He feels the proposed road is out of character for the neighborhood. He does not object to a tVi O lot subdivision. He feels the main hardshin is to the Stankovskv orooertv. He believes economics should not be considered. He would like to see minimal variances allowed and does not view lack of sewerine as a hardshio Nancy Cornwall, 1200 Lyman, lives east of the property-. She is concerned with the impact on Lyman Avenue and what affect the plan will have on the driveway casement for her property. Gaffron indicated that it would not make sense to change to a narrow outlot extending west from the east lot line to serve Lots I and 2. The ramification of this scenario is both lots would require three acres, which they do not have. In addition to this, such a drivewav would be devastating to the land due to the basin and steep slopes of the area. Gaffron indicated that no other access options have been presented. He indicated the driveway could be rebuilt and a cul-de-sac placed to the northwest but would have major impacts on the neighborhood. The prior gentleman asked what the purpose is for the driveway ordinance. Gaffron said h was intended to mainlv acolv to lakeshore lots and is geared for more dense neighborhoods Gaft'ron said consideration could be given to a back lot area variance, which would have less impact on the neighborhood than forcing installation of a road and cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the back lot situation. Stankovsky questioned whether a 50' wide driveway would be required. He noted that a 50’ road would change to a 12' wide roadway and affect safety. Smith asked if this option would assist Lot 4 with the lack of an alternate septic site. Gaffron said it would be questionable. He indicated it would still have to go through the middle of the site and would be difficult to do. Lindquist indicated that he views the application as probably a 3-lot subdivision. He said he cannot approve the plan for Lot 4 without two septic sites and adds this to the problems regarding the cul-de-sac, driveway, and w-etlands. Smith and McMillan agreed with Lindquist. Schroeder said he could not approve the plan without the alternate septic site for Lot 4 even with the potential of sewering in the future. Schroeder said the plan does not work as presented in his opinion. 8