My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Brown Road North
>
960 Brown Road North - 27-118-23-43-0025
>
Land Use
>
02-2763, SUBD
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2026 1:20:39 PM
Creation date
4/2/2026 1:19:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, March 18, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2763 Clayt and Julie Tabor, Continued) <br />Gaffron stated Staff did look at the history of ownership and the chronology of events that have affected <br />this property. Gaffron stated to his knowledge the City has not granted variances to subdivide in cases <br />similar to this and would be precedent setting if a lot area variance were granted to one of the lots. <br />Mr. Tabor noted that this property is adjacent to 21 other properties that are substandard. <br />Hawn commented that is somewhat of a compelling argument, but that the Planning Commission needs <br />to follow the zoning guidelines for this area. <br />Gaffron stated from a precedent setting standpoint, the Planning Commission needs to look at what was <br />there prior to the zoning change in 1975 and what has been approved through a PUD. Gaffron stated he <br />is doubtful you will find a lot within the two acre zone that wasn't either platted before the Code <br />changed to two acre minimum or that isn't a PUD type development where the average lot size has to <br />meet the standards. Gaffron stated to his knowledge of the City, this would be precedent setting <br />because the majority of the rural lots have been there for quite some time. <br />Fritzler commented it is also possible that someone could purchase the property and construct a <br />residence that is not in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. <br />Hawn recommended the Applicants discuss this item with the City Council. <br />Gaffron stated the Applicants could possibly find an adjacent property owner who would like to <br />purchase some additional land and split that piece of property off and sell it to the interested buyer. <br />Mr. Tabor stated in his opinion that is not likely to happen. <br />The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br />(#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING <br />COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 25, 2002, AND MARCH 11, 2002 <br />Berg indicated she attended the February 11 th Council and has nothing to report <br />Smith stated she attended the March 11 th City Council meeting where the application regarding the <br />vacation on Big Island was discussed. Smith indicated the City Council referred that application to the <br />Park Commission for their input. <br />Hawn inquired what progress is being made on the clean-up of Big Island, noting that it was suggested a <br />couple of years ago to have a barge brought out there. Hawn recommended Staff follow pursue <br />clean-up of the island. <br />PAGE 18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.