My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-19-1987 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1987
>
10-19-1987 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2024 1:58:51 PM
Creation date
1/3/2024 1:53:05 PM
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.
/
273
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
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HBETIHC HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 <br />#1201 hilbelink Aogt continued <br />In response to Bellows' concern. Zoning Administrator <br />Mabusth stated that the City Engineer and MCWD will be <br />reviewing the actual defined wetland area. <br />/|643 ktOCE & CAMILLE CURTISS <br />\1920y^AGERNESS POINT ROAD <br />RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE APPLICATION <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the issues <br />involved: 1) Providing a turn-around required as a <br />condition for variances approved by Council on 9/14/'.<l; <br />b) allowing a 6' privacy fence that was constructed <br />without Council approval and according to staff <br />partially in the City right-of-way. <br />Camille Curtiss was present for this matter and <br />contended that they have no objection to installing the <br />turn-around but believed that the City was opposed to <br />the turn-around because it would result in more <br />hardcover. <br />Planning Commission and staff noted that baaed on the <br />documentation from 1981 provided, the turn-around was <br />required. <br />Planning Commission recommended and Mrs. Curtiss agreed <br />to installing the turn-around. <br />«<agarding the remaining issue of the fence, Mrs. Curtiss <br />stated she was unaware that an additional permit was <br />required for the fence and questioned that the fence was <br />partially in the right-of-way. She noted that no <br />further construction has been done on the fence since <br />the City’s stop work order posted 9/11/86, but it is <br />essentially completed. She submitted a petition from <br />her neighbors stating they have no objection to the <br />fence. She stated that the fence is needed for the <br />safety of children. <br />Zoniiig Administrator Mabusth noted that in the 1981 <br />review, the narrow depth of the lot and minimal grassed <br />yard area was discussed. There was no discussion of a <br />fence found in the review of that application but it is <br />applicable in the application for reconsideration. <br />Chairman Kelley suggested that a shorter than 6 ’ fence <br />could serve the safety and privacy concerns. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, coconded by Hanson, to <br />table this matter pending an official survey to <br />determine proper fence location. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays <br />0. <br />II M.-r'T'it ~~ ---------------
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.