My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-19-1993 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
01-19-1993 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2023 11:42:03 AM
Creation date
10/25/2023 11:38:15 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COmiSSION MEETING <br />HELD JANUARY 19, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE §1793 - CONT. <br />Fri«t«n •xplaln*d th« b«rm«d ar«as around! tha pond art to bo fillod <br />frcMi the spoHa removed from the pond area. Ha eald they hope to <br />alleviate the flooding problems in the area with thie pond. <br />The applicant noted the swale was necessary to move the water froei <br />the front of the house to the rear. He felt the installation of the <br />pend wou’d enhance the usability of his back yard as in the spring <br />It is very wet. He contended that the pond on the Bast tan property <br />to the east has never overflowed Into his wetland araa. He <br />explained that di.ring the spring the drainage through his property <br />to the Daniels’ property flows very fast. He felt the Installation <br />of the pond would preserve that flowage without causing additional <br />problems. <br />Chair Bellows noted the Conservation and Flowage Easement, which <br />was filed In the chain of title for the propr ty, states very <br />clearly that no trees, shrubs, or vegetation sn&lI be removed, no <br />dirt shall be moved, etc. She suggested the Easement was approved <br />to protect the property from Improvements such as what Is proposed. <br />She indicated the City Engineer feels this improvement is not <br />necessary to alleviate the drainage problems claimed In application <br />Involving flooding of basement areas. <br />Weekman explained the need for an alternate septic site and the <br />restrictions that apply to that site. Including the requirement <br />that the site be setback 75’ from any body of water. <br />Cliff Otten felt that If the pond were redesigned, the setbacks <br />could be met. <br />Bchroeder said the only way they could approve such a proposal <br />would be If the applicant could prove that the Improvement would <br />provide for the betterment of the pond. <br />Cohen noted *f the drainage pattern were changed, the pond by his <br />house would virtually disappear. He added, Johnson bought the <br />property with these conditions on It, and the easements and <br />requirements were filed in the chain of title. <br />The applicant noted the drainage ditch outlet to the west over time <br />has lost its functionality. He expressed concern for his property <br />value. <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.