My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-1993 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1993
>
02-16-1993 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2023 2:54:39 PM
Creation date
10/25/2023 2:51:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
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
Jeanne A. Mabusth <br />February 4, 1393 <br />Page 4 <br />handles the massive water run-off from the Prudden property. The <br />design of the driveway entrance needs to address how the gutter would <br />stay open. The design should consider the volume of twigs, leaves, and <br />acorns that drop into the open gutter. The debris would easily become <br />lodged in the opening under the driveway entrance. Therefore, the <br />opening needs to be large enough and the owner of the driveway should <br />agree to keep the drain open. <br />4. Wood hill previously agreed to place a declaration against the new lot to <br />provide for subdued outside lighting similar to the restrictions which are <br />presently against the McNellis lot. This language was negotiated by Bob <br />Mitchell. Woodhill also agreed to confer internally as to what provisions <br />they could make available to assist in fire protection. We would like <br />Woodhill to readdress these issues. <br />During the summer of 1990, the City Council referred this matter to the <br />McNellises, Pruddens, and Woodhill, to see if we could come up with a <br />solution upon which we could all agree. At that time the road was broken <br />up from our construction. We were anxious to put the driveway back in <br />serviceable condition before winter, and offe.'ed to contribute the cost of the <br />damage and additionally share In the costs of upgrading the driveway. <br />Woodhill’s President, Thomas V. Markle, agreed with the McNellises ’ and <br />Pruddens ’ recommendations and sent us a letter confirming the same. The <br />hang-up occurred when Woodhill was unwilling to pay what the Pruddens <br />and McNellises felt was their fair share. McNellis repaired the driveway and <br />It is f^ow perfectly adequate for the McNellises and Pruddens. If Woodhill <br />withdraws this application there will be no need to upgrade Part A of the <br />driveway . Therefore, we feel that if a subdivision is desired by Woodhill, <br />the cost of upgrading the driveway should bo their cost. <br />Jeanne, admittedly it is difficult to fully describe the points listed In this <br />letter. Roberta and I will be returning to Orono on February 22, and will be <br />happy to meet with any Interested party to discuss this matter personally. <br />Cordially yours, <br />Thomas E. McNellis <br />cc: John & Stephanie Prudden <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.