Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1991 <br />• X01683 - CONT. <br />I'l <br />Johnson felt that the application should not be tabled as the <br />applicant has provided the information requested at the last <br />meeting and Cook can review all further issues. Rowlette and <br />Moos agreed. <br />Bellows and Cohen wanted all information submitted before <br />progressing to the Council for review. <br />Johnson and Rowlette felt a private drive should be allowed to be <br />installed, to be upgraded in the future when the property is <br />further subdivided. <br />Bellows, Cohen, Moos and Kelley want to see the partial roadway <br />developed, with plans submitted for the entire property. <br />It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table <br />Application #1683 for Robert F. Suess of 2590 Watertown Road, for <br />preliminary subdivision approval, providing time for the <br />applicant to provide resolve of the drainage issues and time for <br />the Hackberry Hill residents to express their concerns; and that <br />a plan be submitted for the entire roadway with a portion to be <br />completed with this subdivision. Ayes 3, nays 3. <br />Johnson felt that the City was penalizing the applicant by asking <br />for information based on long -range plans. He noted that owners <br />could have just denied any future plans to subdivide. <br />Haislet asked who would deal with the Hackberry Hill residents on <br />drainage easements and Gaffron noted that the City will. <br />It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend denial <br />of Application #1683 for Robert F. Suess of 2590 Watertown Road <br />for preliminary subdivision approval, based on the lack of a <br />drainage plan and noting the subdivision would have to adhere to <br />the code which requires a three lot subdivision to install a <br />private road. Ayes 3, nays 3. <br />Councilmember Callahan noted that the Commission had tabled the <br />Long Lake application because of lack of information and felt it <br />was unfair to treat this application in any other manner. <br />Chair Kelley also noted that he does not have a problem allowing <br />the applicant to maintain his present curb cut. <br />7 <br />