My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-2001 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
02-26-2001 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2012 4:28:16 PM
Creation date
3/5/2012 4:28:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
• <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />February 26, 2001 <br />( #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout; Continued) <br />Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant prefers the Council vote on the resolution. <br />Van Eeckhout stated in his view the time extension is not the big issue tonight. Van Eeckhout <br />stated until he signed the extension on December I", the City did not have extension for a period <br />of time. <br />Flint stated at the time the Applicant signed the last extension he agreed to do so without any <br />prejudice to any rights which have accrued to the Applicant in the past. <br />Mayor Peterson inquired whether the Applicant will agree to an extension. <br />Van Eeckhout stated he is convinced an extension will not do anything for him. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( #6) #2631 CITY OF ORONO — ZONING CODE AMENDMENT — RPUD RESIDENTIAL <br />PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — ORDINANCE NO. 202,2 ND SERIES <br />Gaffron stated the City Council discussed this matter in a work session last week, with the <br />• Council requesting some minor changes to the Ordinance. Gaffron stated the requested <br />modifications have been incorporated into the ordinance and are defined in his February 23, 2001 <br />memorandum. Gaffron recommended the Council adopt the ordinance for creation of a <br />residential planned unit development district. <br />Flint questioned the section regarding clustered use in a rural area and whether that is good policy <br />on the part of the City. Flint inquired if someone had ten acres in a five acre zoning whether they <br />would be permitted to have two units in close proximity to one another. <br />Moorse stated it is his understanding of the ordinance that clustering of single family homes is <br />permitted in the rural areas but clustering in addition to that is only permitted in the urban areas. <br />Gaffron stated if a person has ten acres and wants to construct two dwellings in close proximity, <br />that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated they would be permitted to construct two houses on the <br />ten acres but not three. Gaffron stated it is reasonable to expect that someone might cluster eight <br />homes on two acre sites with 32 acres remaining open in order to make the septic work. <br />Flint stated that cluster is not attached. <br />Gaffron stated with attached dwellings you start to deal with issues relating to sewer and <br />maintaining open space. <br />Flint stated the Council can probably review this issue in the future. <br />Gaffron commented the City has generally thought of rural areas as having single family units <br />• and not attached housing units. <br />PAGE 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.