Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 <br />{i*6 - M2060 Tim Feyo and Karen FuIlcr-Fe>’o - Continued) <br />Peterson said regarding this survey dispute, his position is to look at the survey submitted <br />by the apphcant as the one by which to gauge the application. A neighbor's survey would <br />only be considered if it differed from the one supplied by the applicant. <br />During public comments, Herman Laue said he is conconed with drainage, hardcover, ami <br />the lot line issue He said he is wr>rking on a surv ey and may pursue a Torrens mnion in <br />order to settle the lot line dispute Peterson commented that Laue has not to date shown <br />by documentation any discrepancy with the survey done by the applicant. <br />Rowlette moved. Smith seconded, to approve the renewal of Application #2060 with the <br />same conditions previously laid out <br />Gaflfron noted receipt of two letters from neighbon, Laue and Wiley, opposing the <br />renewal of the application, which w ere read into the minutes and are part of the <br />application package. <br />Another letter from Mr Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane, neighbor down hill from Laue, <br />opposes the renew al due to a concern with runoff from stormwater It is his opinion that <br />the increase in hardcover would add to the runoff problem and cause erosion to the public <br />access Schroeder commented that any home built on the property would have to have an <br />approved drainage plan that met City code Peterson noted that this was a case of diqxite <br />between neighbors <br />Gaffron clarified conditions previously stated regarding legal combination of the lots, <br />setback and hardcover requirements, and detailed grading plans showing driveway and any <br />tree removal, and retaining walls. <br />Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0 Motion carried <br />(#7) #2061 ARNE WASBERG, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE <br />RENEWAL • PUBLIC HEARING 10:00-10:02 P.M. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br />Weekman reported that the application was for a variance renewal, which expired <br />September 12, 1995. <br />The applicant was not present. <br />There were no public comments.