Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD JUNE 15, 1992 <br />2110 SUGARWOOD DRIVE - DRIVEWAY REALIGNMENT - CONT. <br />Bonner said there is actually a 13' drop from the street to the <br />rear of the lot and that is the primary reason for the original <br />retaining wall. He said they have chosen to enter the property at <br />the only spot which is relatively the same grade as the street. <br />Mabusth noted the Mr. Bonner had received a copy of the <br />architectural contracts when he purchased the property from Mr. <br />Rebers. <br />Peterson asked about interfering with the existing utilities. <br />Bonner said the drive is right on grade, and the utility companies <br />have indicated they do not have a problem with the location. Cudd <br />has agreed to relocate the stop box if they wish. <br />It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend <br />approval of the request to revise the driveway alignment for <br />Charles Cudd Company, 2110 Sugarwood Drive. Ayes 2, nays 2. <br />Peterson voted nay because he felt the building had no intent to <br />construct the driveway as originally proposed. Bellows voted nay <br />also. <br />Mabusth said she thought the straight alignment through the <br />retaining wall was very attractive, but would destroy the bass <br />wood. The house was located at the only position given the <br />topography of the property. <br />Bonner said they could use the straight alignment, but it appears <br />that they would be asked to meet the letter of the law, not the <br />spirit of it. <br />Bellows said she would change her vote if given assurance that this <br />would not happen after - the -fact again. <br />Bonner suggested that the covenants be changed to give builders <br />more flexibility. <br />Bellows explained that the intent of the covenants was to make the <br />builder gain approval prior to construction. <br />Chair Kelley said Bonner should have read through the covenants <br />prior to beginning construction. <br />( #10) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE <br />There was no report. <br />14 <br />