My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-17-1989 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1989
>
07-17-1989 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2023 9:03:37 AM
Creation date
9/13/2023 3:32:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
MIHUTBS or ns riAimiHG COMMISSIOII MBBTine JOLY 17, 1989 <br />[II HI80MIM6 PILB «1428>B01IGBSS COVTII <br />Cohen said that such an issue was difficult because of the <br />City's policy to discourage excavation for walkouts. Approval of <br />this application would be precedent setting. <br />Planning Commissioner Brown said he did not see an adequate <br />hardship to justify approval of the variance. He felt that the <br />bank could be restored without the need to excavate for the <br />walkout feature of the proposed home. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he appreciated the <br />restoration of the bank and the house being set back behind the <br />75' setback line. However, he disapproved of excavation within <br />the 0-75' zone. He also felt that given the size of the lot, <br />hardcover within the 75-250' setback area could be maintained at <br />25%. <br />Planning Commissioner Moos also felt that the proposed <br />excavation was excessive and could find no hardship for doing so. <br />Mr. Burgess said that City staff had indicated that <br />conformance was important. He said that he did not understand <br />how the Planning Commission could deny excavation within the <br />lakeshore area without providing an adequate explanation as to <br />why. In his opinion his proposal addressed th-j ecological <br />concerns of the City. He believed his proposal was a substantial <br />improvement from what currently existed. <br />Mr. Berg said that there was no legal basis for rejecting a <br />hardship on the grounds that there was an alternative to a <br />particular proposal. <br />There were no further comments from the public regarding <br />this matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by <br />Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial of this <br />aoplication due to the proposal inte»'fering in the 0-75' setback <br />zone and no adequate hardship demonstrated to do so. Motion, <br />Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. <br />(At this time, 9:15 p.m.. Planning Commissioner Cohen <br />departed.) <br />SKETCH PLAM RBVlElf <br />#1427 AlAH CARLSON, 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />SUBDIVISION <br />Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this sketch plan review, as <br />was Mr. Gary Peterson, his Developer. <br />Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that <br />there was 41.6 acres of land that Mr. Carlson wished to <br />subdivide. <br />Mr. Carlson said t....t he purchased Dr. Panuska’s property <br />r
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.