Laserfiche WebLink
HINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELDi AUGUST 24, 1992 <br />r:-.‘ <br />■ ‘ : <br />2112 SUGARWOODS DRIVE - CONT.Mabusth noted based on applicant’s information that they would lose more trees with the straight alignment. She reported she received a phone call from David Ahlers. neighbor to the north, in which he <br />expressed opposition to the proposed drive as his privacy will be <br />affected and that drive will have a visual impact from his <br />residence because of the alignment between both drives. <br />Callahan noted the builder obviously was notified of the <br />requirement but did not unde-stand the severity of the request. He <br />stated this issue Is a civi' war between the Planning Commission <br />and developeij* of this property. <br />Goetten asked if there was some way to alleviate future requests. <br />Mabusth explained the original intent was to save the trees and <br />minimize the impact in the front street setback area. She felt the <br />straight aligned driveway may actually work against the intent of <br />the PRD. She stated the would like to see the Planning Commission <br />reconsider the Issue. She added the straight aligned drive has <br />presented problems in dealing with the contractors who feel the <br />whole Intent of the PRD was to maintain the natural buffer and <br />screen residences from street activities and maintain overall <br />natural setting. <br />Jabbour noted after-the-fact applications rubs everyone the wrong <br />way. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve the <br />driveway realignment for Scott Larson of 2112 Sugarwoods Drive, and <br />to note that the Council is in agreement with the frustration <br />expressed by Planning Commissioner Bellows, but added that they <br />should look at what is best for the site and the ecology. Ayes 5. <br />nays 0. <br />Goetten warned Larson to gain approval prior to beginning a project <br />when building in Orono. <br />(e#9) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SECTION 9.21 PUBLIC NUISANCE <br />SECTION 9.23 PARTICIPATION IN NOISY PARTIES <br />ORDINANCE #109, SECOND SERIES <br />It was movad by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Ordinance <br />Sioa, Second Senes to reinstate the puD I ic nuisance definition as <br />Section 9.21 and readopt the Noisy Parties Ordinance as Section <br />9.23. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />■-* <br />■ '-i - <br />1^5. <br />, A-.'