My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 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.
/
373
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
' MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> last summer. Schmidt stated it was obvious the permit parameters were being exceeded early on in the <br /> project, which triggered complaint calls to the City. <br /> Schmidt stated he does not have a problem with the dirt but that it is the disruption to the neighborhood <br /> that has already occurred under the nose of the City. Schmidt stated he knows it is a little late to whine <br /> about that now,but that he has a concern about another 300 to 500 trucks. Schmidt stated the other <br /> neighbors have mare to lose than he does about potential flooding. Schmidt commented he is anxious to <br /> get this project behind them. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked if Staff has a significant concern about flooding on the neighboring property. Leskinen <br /> asked if any flooding occurred on the neighboring property that Staff is aware of. <br /> Curtis stated the City Engineer has reviewed the submitted plans and the changes to the property in light <br /> of the drain tile being restored. Curtis stated the failed drain tile likely caused some of the flooding and <br /> brought about the concerns. Curtis stated as long as proper maintenance of the overflow is done, it is her <br /> belief the City Engineer is satisfied with the plan. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City is satisfied that any significant road damage will be the responsibility of the <br /> applicant. <br /> Curtis noted the applicant did repair a section of the road last year and that the City completed a <br /> secondary repair, which will be billed to the property owner. Curtis noted this section of Watertown <br /> Road will be reconstructed and that she is not aware of what the evaluation will be at that point,but the <br /> other haul routes will be inspected. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in general in other situations the City has not held property owners responsible but that <br /> he would encourage the City to do whatever they can do to ensure the property owner is held responsible <br /> for any damage that might occur. <br /> Page 19 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.