Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS op TBB PLAHHiHG COMMISSION MBETIIIG HELD AOGOST 15, 1988 <br />• 1*1•PTORPfi SUBDIVISION PBOPOSAL CONTI <br />potential homeowner would need to get their house plans approved <br />by an architectural control committee. This would assure that <br />all houses, whether built by Mr. Rebers or another developer, met <br />certain standards required for building in that development. <br />Kelley asked whether the homeowner's association would be <br />the enforcing body of the covenants, and what the penalties would <br />be for the homeowner who violated any of the covenants. Mr. <br />Pflaum stated that the immediate homeo%#ner was the most concerned <br />party. They would notify the adjacent homeowner or builder of <br />any potential violation. The homeowner has the right of <br />injunctive relief, which would interfere with building and <br />financing. The second level of enforcement would be the City of <br />Orono, which would have separate, legal authority to enforce the <br />provisions set forth there in the contract entered into with the <br />developer. Mr. Kelley asked about a specific situation where an <br />adjacent neighbor would have no objections to a homeowner adding <br />a tennis court outside the building pad. Mr. Pflaum replied that <br />the City should not issue a permit for the tennis court because <br />it would violate the provisions of the contract. Kelley asked <br />about the individual who would cut down a tree within the <br />protective easement location. Mr. Pflaum stated that the <br />individual would be in violation of the covenants and would be <br />breaking the contract with the homeowner's association and the <br />City. Generally the red flag would come from a neighbor who <br />would report the incident. The City could then order the <br />violator to cease and desist. Cohen asked if it would be <br />possible to mark the trees that are not to be removed. Pflaum <br />answ0r6d affirinativoly. Mr» Jarvis statsd ^ha^ in liau of <br />marking each tree, a snow fence or taping would be dene to mark <br />the protective area. <br />Kelley stated that there were some big issues involved with <br />this project. He wanted to get the Planning Commission's <br />feedback on the following key issues; <br />Continuation of Pine Ridge Lane; Johnson thought the plan worked <br />very nicely. Ringer's Woods is basically the same, except for <br />the extension of Pine Ridge Lane. He thought the plan would not <br />require through traffic. Bellow was not absolutely positive that <br />Pine Ridge would need to be the connecting road. Kelley would be <br />satisfied if they could find something that would work with the <br />33 acres or the total 45 without connection to Pine Ridge# he <br />would not object to deadending Pine Ridge, and having <br />associa'wion to the west vacated and divided up amongst the <br />property owners to the west. Cohen disagreed with Kelley and was <br />concerned about entering or exiting the location should the only <br />access be blocked due to an accident or other reason. Brown was <br />not in favor of connecting Pine Ridge, but liked the aspect of <br />keeping the parcel separate. Moos felt that the connection was <br />not necessary, but wanted to have a loop. In sunraary, <br />Planning Commission felt that connection with Pine Ridge would