My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-21-1987 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
09-21-1987 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2023 12:14:06 PM
Creation date
9/21/2023 9:36:01 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
MIHUTBS OP THE PIAMHIHG O ilSSIOH TING HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 <br />11201 HILBELIHKAOGT COHTIHUED <br />In response to Bellows' concern. Zoning Administrator <br />Mabusth stated that the City Engineer and MCWD will be <br />reviewing the actual defined wetland area. <br />#643 BRUCE 6 CAMILLE CURTISS <br />1920 PAGERMESS POINT ROAD <br />RECONSIDERATION OP VARIANCE APPLICATION <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the issues <br />involved; 1) Providing a turn-around required as a <br />condition for variances approved by Council on 9/14/81; <br />b) allowing a 6' privacy fence that was constructed <br />without Council approval and according to staff <br />partially in the City right-of-way. <br />Camille Curtiss was present for this matter and <br />contended that they have no objection to installing the <br />turn-around but believed that the City was opposed to <br />the turn-around because it would result in more <br />hardcover. <br />Planning Commission and staff noted that based on the <br />documentation from 1981 provided, the turn-around was <br />required. <br />Planning Commission recommended and Mrs. Curtiss agreed <br />to installing the turn-around. <br />Regarding the remaining issue of the fence, Mrs. Curtiss <br />stated she was unaware that an additional permit was <br />required for the fence ana questioned that the fence was <br />partially in the right-of-way. She noted that no <br />further construction has been done on the fence since <br />the City's stop work order posted 9/11/86, but it is <br />essentially completed. She submitted a petition from <br />her neighbors stating they have no objection to the <br />fence. She stated that the fence is needed for the <br />safety of children. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that in the 1981 <br />review, the narrow depth of the lot and minimal grassed <br />yard area was discussed. There was no discussion of a <br />fence found in the review of that application but it is <br />applicable in the application for reconsideration. <br />Chairman Kelley suggested that a shorter than 6' fence <br />could serve the safety and privacy concerns. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to <br />table this matter pending an official survey to <br />determine proper fence location. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays <br />0.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.