Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
It <br />6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 <br />ROLL <br />The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the <br />following members present: Planning Commission Chair Charlie <br />Kelley, Maureen Bellows, Charles Schroeder and Stephen Peterson. <br />The following were absent: Ed Cohen, Candace Rowlette, and Jeff <br />Johnson. The following represented the City Staff: Building and <br />Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, and City Recorder Teri Naab. <br />Chair Kelley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. <br />( #1) #1759 P. PROFT /R. WELLS, <br />60/70 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD - <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7:10 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Robert Mitchell was present to represent the applicants. <br />Mabusth explained that this is a lot line rearrangement for <br />properties located in the RR -1B zoning district. The Profts' <br />property consists of 4.8 acres and the Wells' property consists of <br />1.6 acres. At the time the subdivision is completed, the Wells' <br />property would contain approximately 1.3 acres. She noted that a <br />portion of the property to be attached to Profts' parcel consists <br />40 of wetlands. She added that both Steve Schirmers and Steve Weckman <br />confirmed that the area considered for acquisition by the Profts <br />is not suitable for septic development to serve future needs of the <br />Wells' property. She stated the current and future owners of the <br />Wells' property should be alerted of the septic limitations of the <br />property. She added there is no land adjacent to the Wells' <br />property that they could acquire for septic purposes. <br />Chair Kelley asked if variance approval is also needed. <br />Mabusth explained that the Wells' property is a substandard lot and <br />the request further decreases the area of the lot. <br />Chair Kelley asked the applicants' hardships. <br />Mitchell stated that if the triangular parcel is not acquired by <br />the Profts, it may affect the driveway turnaround on their property <br />and their views to the southwest. He added that the parcel in <br />question is of no benefit to the Wells. He said there is no <br />diminution of the Wells' property, but the benefit to the Profts <br />is enormous. He stated the hardship is created because of the <br />unusual shape of the lot and the location of the wetlands. <br />Bellows asked if the Profts have a driveway easement over the Wells <br />6 property. <br />1 <br />