My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-25-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
11-25-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2024 12:40:35 PM
Creation date
7/26/2024 12:38:13 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.
/
256
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
ii. <br />f <br />MINUTES OF THE REQULAR ORONO COUNCIL MIITINa - NOVIHSIR iii i99i <br />APPLICATION #1603 - CONT. <br />Butler asked how a partial grading plan would fit into a grading <br />plan for the whole property. <br />Cook noted that they could watch to make sure the rest of the <br />property Is not coniprowlsed for future development. He noted <br />dealing with the drainage along the east lot line Is very <br />Important at this time, and a portion of the retention pond <br />should be developed also. He felt a plan for the proposed <br />roadway and a grading plan which covers drainage along the east <br />lot line would be adequate at this time. <br />Halslet noted this was acceptable to them. He noted that prior <br />to application submittal, he had polled the Planning Commission <br />for their reaction on a lot line rearrangement and then a <br />subdivision vs. one application for a subdivision to eliminate <br />the need for a private roadway as the first would provide for <br />only a 2 lot plat. He noted the Commission has now changed their <br />position and Is asking for a roadway to be constructed. <br />Callahan and Bulter felt the first scenario may <br />considered as game-playing. <br />have been <br />Jabbour agreed with the partial grading plan and allowing the <br />existing curb cut to remain for the residence, but f< : the <br />roadway should be developed at this time. All Members agreed <br />this is a 3 lot plat. <br />Halslet asked If the Council would consider ? variance to the <br />road standard and allow Just a drive to be ccnstructed at this <br />time to serve the two new lots. <br />Jabbour asked what the hardship Is for granting the variance. <br />Halslet noted they could have done the two subdivision process <br />and met requirements for a 2 lot plat and not been required to <br />build the roadway. <br />Jabbour felt this was more a technical loophole, rather than <br />hardship. <br />It was moved by Goettan, seconded by Callahan, to adopt <br />Resolution #3038 for Application #1683 for Robert F. Suess of <br />2S90 Watertown Road, approving preliminary subdivision for a <br />three lot plat which would require submittal of a partial grading <br />and road plan, allowing the existing residence to retain curb cut <br />onto Watertown Road, and allowing construction of a driveway <br />rather than a road to serve the two new lots until further <br />development of the property to the north. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.