05-17-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFEfING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Candace Rowlette, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Jr., Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City Staff: Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Teri Naab. Edward Caliahan, Gabriel Jabbour and Charles Kelley were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He introduced the new members: Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Janice Berg and Dale Lindquist and expressed his appreciation to the outgoing members: Jeffrey Johnson, Maureen Bellows and Ed Cohen. (#1) #1821 MARGO WIRTJES, 3085 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:58 - 8:59 P.M. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1821 for Margo Wirtjes, at the request of the applicant. Ayes 6, nays 0. Smith abstained. (#2) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCAHIHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ORAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 - 8:50 P.M. The Af fIdavit of Pub Iicat I on and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. McCarthy was present. Mabusth explained two options for development as outlined in the memo. She noted the City Engineer has requested that no new curb cuts be approved. She indicated the cede does not require a shared access for new developments off private roads and noted there is adequate width along the road for an individual curb cut for Lot 2.She proposed the only way to approve this -application without variances is to include the area within the 250-500’ setback area within the 75-250’ area and credit the driveway hardcover against the 75-250’ hardcover allowance of 25*. Applicant would have to maintain hardcover at 25*. She noted the applicant proposes hardcover at 25.1* within the 75-250’ setback area. She also r ,ted the shed at the shared lot line would need to be removed. Char t ■» 5;Smoot, 2665 Maple Ridge Lane, expressed strong opposition lo /he proposal and explained this is one of the principal wooded areas left in the area to help wit.h run-off. He presented a petition or opposition. He felt the existing house and lot were appropriate for the neighborhood. He added the applicant has not lived in the neighborhood yet and wishes to change it already. 1 1