Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15. 1991 (#10)ZONING FILE 11618-PUCEL CONTINUED She said, "i agree %ii1 :1 .eLL t.^.3� �fle 11L�r^3L��n � �� has been prvv ided to as is insufficient in order for us to mace anv real - determinations. I have said in the past, and will reiterate, that in ,,v opinion, access to this property firs` a,d foremc,st, must be solved before construction of anything can b;? considered. This is the first time I have heard Mr. Pucei mention his plans nor the road, drainace, or sewer. I nave serious questions about whether or not this property can be developed beyond a single unit. The only way I can see development occurring is under the guidelines o` a PRD. However, it would have b? a PRD that is in strict conformance %,th all other zoning regulations." Mobs agreed that ,Mr. Pucel had not provided sufficient information, given the sensitive nature of the this property. She stated that she does not believe t e property %rill support more than one home. Rowlette stated that construction of three additional home-; on this property, with the pad size indicated by Mr. Pucel, would create more hardcover than she could approve. Hanson .;tated that becauze this property is ,o sensitive, he would not consider any application that will require Variances. He did say that he would consider a variation from the Code in order for the provision of adequate access. Cohen said, "l 3m consistent with my recommendations for denying hardcover within the )-75' setback area, and would itinue my polity in this case. I cannot sae more tha: one additional home on this property." Bellows explained to Mr. Puce-1 that tee idea o` a PRD is not to p,jsh the intention of any of the City's Zoning Variances or restrictions in terms of allowing someone to build something that exceeds what a proper-y can sustain. She sail, "Th-e point of a P?D is to give a landowner some degree of latitude. Lt is designe.' •-o allow someone to develop a piece of property that has some unique features oy clustering, or other means, that will result in a minimal impact on tnat site. In my opinion, Mr. Pucel, your proposal goes against the spirit of wha` a ?RD is. You have simply taken three, very large, foot pads and put them out on a site on land. That is not the point of a PRD. You have heard very clearly from the Planning Commission that if we are to recommend approval of a PRD on this site, we would not allow any other Variances." Jabbour suggested if the property owner proceeds with development plans that the survey be confirmed before he is given approval. He stated that the s:.)ithwest corner of the point continues to slide n'o the lace a -id the survey Mr. Pucel has provided is three years old.