My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-17-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
05-17-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2023 4:15:19 PM
Creation date
10/26/2023 4:11:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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 COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MAY 17, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT. <br />Dan Saklad, 2496 Old Beach Road, stated there is no way to develop <br />this property without major destruction to the neighborhood. He <br />noted the lane is only wide enough for one car. He expressed strong <br />opposition to the subdivision. <br />Mrs. Saklad questioned the zoning for the area. <br />Mabusth replied this Is a one acre zoning district. She referred <br />to a phone conversation with Karen Paulson, 2605 Maple Ridge Lane, <br />who expressed strong opposition to the subdivision and concern for <br />the loss of mature trees. <br />Chair Schroeder read letters of opposition ^rom Kathy Madaris, 2480 <br />Old Beach Road and Joyce and Keith Olson, 2510 Old Heach Road. <br />Mabusth questioned whether the Commission would recommend that the <br />drive be included in the 75-250’ area and hardcover calculations. <br />She asked if they would consider either the granting of a hardcover <br />variance for the narrow 20’ wide portion of the lot or consider <br />this portion a part of the 75-250’ zone and require the applicant <br />to reduce hardcover to 25X. <br />Chair Schroeder questioned the buildability of Lot 2. <br />Mabusth stated it is a buildable, non-riparian lot. <br />Peterson asked the applicant his plans for this parcel. <br />McCarthy said he would like to develop this property In the future. <br />He noted the previous owner Indicated the vacant property provided <br />little benefit. He stated he would like an opportunity to build on <br />this parcel and only intends to enhance the neighborhood by doing <br />so. <br />Smoot stated alI other surrounding properties maintain at least one <br />vacant acre. He questioned the need to subdivide at this time if <br />the applicant does not propose to build right away. <br />Rowlette questioned how a building on this property would affect <br />the property at the lower elevation. She questioned whether a <br />similar division has ever been approved. <br />Mabusth indicated there has never been a division as such approved <br />in the past as flag lots did not conform to standards. Flag lots <br />are allowed based on the new lot width standards for lakeshore <br />lots. <br />■* 1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.