08-27-1990 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 27, 1990 •ZONING FILE #1476 -PRASS CONTINUED approved of the cover proposed. blabusth replied, "Staff has not had an opportunity to review the information relating to the cover.." Mayor Grabek said, "I want to provide staff with the opportunity to thoroughly review the pool cover proposed. If staff determines that the cover is not safe, then the pool will either have to be filled or covered as staff first suggested." Nettles asked how long it would take for the pool to be covered once approval is given. Mrs. Prass replied, "The pool cover has to be custom made. It is my understanding that it will take 30 days to arrive from the date it is ordered." Callahan suggested that staff review the pool cover, taking into consideration the change in temperature and the ability for it to be cut or torn. Mayor Grabek added. "The review should include whether the cover will function properly for two years." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to table • this application until September .10. 1990, to allow staff the opportunity to review the cover proposed. Further, the deadline for covering the pool will be extended to a date determined by staff to be appropriate. Motion, Ayes -4. Nays -0. Plotion passed. #1497 TOBERMAN MANAGEMENT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW 'Mr. Toberman and his attorney, Jim Gilbert, were present. Mr. Gilbert asked Council to reconsider the action taken April 9, 1990. He said, "The corporation that owns 'these properties is in bankruptcy. We have a hearing next week in bankruptcy court. The 'vendor of the Contract for Deed is moving to lift the State's foreclosure on the main marina property. They have a buyer for the marina property and 1960 Shoreline Drive (transmission shop). The transmission shop is an integral part of the new buyer's plans for the marina. He wants to conduct nautical sales and marina business from that facility. One of the conditions that has been mentioned is the City's position on the property. We think the property should be zoned for commercial use. The Council ruled that there has been a lapse of use and that the property should now be residential. I don't believe that is fair or realistic. I don't think the facts support that kind of use. The property has been used • commercially sin=e 1963 and is taxed as commercial property. To 5 -