My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2018 3:40:12 PM
Creation date
4/6/2015 3:35:19 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.
/
431
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 13 of 34 <br /> <br />Stacy Alness, Applicant, stated she would like to make a couple of points. Alness stated they did not <br />know it was even possible to build on this lot until their neighbor sold their property. Alness stated their <br />understanding was that you could not build on a 50-foot lot and that they were told by Staff that there was <br />a new statute in place that allows people to build on 50-foot lots. Alness commented they would like to <br />be treated equally and that they would like to extinguish the agreement since it was entered into only for <br />the purpose of allowing a dock. <br /> <br />Stacy Alness stated a house on that lot would not be out of character with the neighborhood since there <br />will be a brand-new house being constructed on 1161. <br /> <br />Ryan Alness noted 1161 is also a 50-foot lot. <br /> <br />Stacy Alness stated the neighbors at 1153 are working with them to create an easement to gain access to <br />this lot. The road that was originally proposed is not the actual road and their driveway and part of their <br />garage is in the proposed road. Alness pointed out the proposed road on the overhead and the driveway. <br />The actual road is in a different location, which necessitates the need for an easement. The people at <br />1159 have indicated they would grant them an easement. Alness stated they are willing to work on the <br />issues relating to the lift station to see if a resolution can be arrived at. <br /> <br />Ryan Alness stated the property at 1161 used to be combined or in common ownership with 1179. The <br />homeowners of 1135 North Arm Drive also own the 50-foot lake parcel next to this property and they <br />were never required to execute a Special Lot Combination Agreement as the previous property owner was <br />for this lot. Alness stated they are allowed to have a dock. <br /> <br />Stacy Alness stated prior to the Special Lot Combination Agreement being signed, there were docks on <br />other parcels in that area. Surveys show that there have been docks out there for 30 plus years and they <br />were not required to have a Special Lot Combination Agreement. Alness stated in her view they are <br />being treated differently since they were required to have this agreement. <br /> <br />Renae Meerkins, 1135 and 1137 North Arm Drive, noted she did submit a letter previously objecting to <br />this request. Meerkins indicated this would result in an encroachment on their property since the <br />applicants would have to cross their property to gain access. In addition, they would encumber their <br />property by restricting their view of the lake should a house be built on that lot and that they would be <br />opposed to any use of their property for an easement. <br /> <br />Meerkins stated they also have concerns regarding water runoff and that they currently experience water <br />issues on their lakeside property. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the easement the applicants have arranged to gain access to their lake property would <br />also require an easement over the Meerkins’ property. <br /> <br />Meerkins indicated it would. <br /> <br />Stacy Alness stated that is due to the road not being built in the proposed location. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if that is because the easement they have arranged does not cover 100 percent of the <br />access. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 13 of 34]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.