My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-22-1990 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
01-22-1990 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 10:19:17 AM
Creation date
4/23/2019 10:19:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
. . -t <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1990 <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />#1452 WALTER PEMBERTON <br />1720 SHADYWOOD ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />Councilmember Peterson said that her concerns applied to <br />zoning applications #1452 and #1468. Peterson stated that in the <br />past, the Council has denied applications and the applicants have <br />come back and requested that their matter be tabled. Peterson <br />questioned the need to reword the existing ordinance pertaining <br />to Council denial. She said that the Pillsburys and Pembertons <br />were given the opportunity to have their applications tabled, but <br />indicated that they preferred to have the Council vote. Peterson <br />asked why, after the Council voted to deny these applications, <br />denial resolutions were not presented at this meeting. <br />Bernhardson said that past practice has been to have the <br />Council give conceptual denial, directing staff to bring back a <br />denial resolution at the following meeting. This practice allows <br />staff and the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting forth <br />the reasons for denial. Bernhardson said that the denial goes <br />into effect once the resolution is voted upon and accepted <br />rather than at the conceptual stage. Bernhardson suggested that <br />the past policy be revised if that is what the Council desires. <br />Peterson said that the ordinance should be changed so that is <br />the ordinance and actions of the staff and Council are consistent. <br />Bernhardson said that he would review the ordinance and <br />possible revisions and report his findings to the Council. <br />Peterson said that she had assumed that these applications <br />were over and done and were coming back for the execution of the <br />denial resolutions. <br />Councilmember Goetten concurred with Peterson. She added <br />that she had no objection to tabling these applications, provided <br />that the applicants come back with a proposal that could be <br />approved. <br />Councilmember Peterson questioned whether it was necessary <br />for the Pillsburys and Pembertons to go back through the Planning <br />Commission procedure? <br />Bernhardson said if the Planning Commission had recommended <br />denial, he would suggest that. However, in this case, the <br />applicants would probably be coming back with a reduction from <br />what the Planning Commission had recommended to approve. <br />Mrs. Pemberton was present and said she did not recall being <br />given an option one way or the other. • <br />Councilmember Goetten recollected that she had offered the <br />option of tabling to the Pillsburys and believed that she had <br />1) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.