My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
11-12-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2024 12:14:09 PM
Creation date
7/23/2024 12:09:21 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.
/
512
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
« <br />Mimis or m orono punnino commission mejtiko w? ociobrr 21, i*»i <br />#1683 - CONT. <br />CAffron noted that is recomoending the road be developed at <br />S'H' 2iS?h 2t He i. requesting <br />Jb -ortbernl. building lot^ re^S^r^ <br />tSi* rSJSilr inS :L!d‘?.":i» tJe existing drive to ecces, off <br />the new roadway. <br />Johnson felt it should be treated ^that^^it^'^would beek.v Are creatiriR two new lots and felt that ic wouiu w® <br />iSSJonJlIte to plat the roadway at this tioe but only require <br />dfvIloMont of the private drive until further development. He <br />felt the current residence should maintain the existing cur cu <br />onto Watertown Road. <br />Habusth noted that thought must be given to how the road would be <br />paid for in the future. <br />Haislet askf.d if the drainage swale would have to be developed at <br />this time as there is no immediate future plan. <br />C«(fron indict..! th.t . .ot.on could <br />?i*.« SS! pun.nd -ouid table the application Saffron <br />^ ®rAdin£ is relatively minor and if a grading <br />alan*is*subaitt.d it could be reviewed by tne Engineer Pfi’f to <br />SiccU ‘muitcry Plat rev.ew. avoiding another tabling. <br />rha.e lallav still uantad to review the drainage plans and wanted <br />tS^ InJlc ?hil tie SSekberry Hill neighbors' conc.rns have been <br />addrsssad. <br />ruiim.iSr.r“?‘i: :uiiii!.tor-hici <br />rosolvas the issue of road v *rive. <br />■cl.tt. fel. that if the deve.op.ent is <br />future, and the roadway is required to be bui.t, w.the <br />■aintaioad pr rly •"<* **>' b. a t.rribl.:s;.i:i.'“ir:brc:i?.Tt"i..irnt"?rt-*fo ‘iov. tb. dnv. t. th. <br />mow roadway. <br />BAllawe stated ‘“hat the roadway should be constructed to providj <br />‘cicni SiviupJant. Sh. felt th. current residence <br />should move thair drive to the new roadway. <br />■ali’.t noted that the applicant would not <br />aea .rio and baa stated th.t just a short P«rf^ <br />daveloopsnt was allowed nearby thut allowed all new lots <br />onto the platted roadway. -hich is what he wanted to do in th <br />first place.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.