My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-08-1991 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
04-08-1991 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2019 8:28:09 AM
Creation date
4/30/2019 8:28:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1991 <br />(413)HIGHWAY 12 POSITION CONTINUED <br />purposes of discussion, to reconsider the acceptance, and adoption <br />.-)f the Planning Commission's recommendation on Highway 12 <br />Corridor. Motion, Ayes -3, Butler azd Callahan, Nay. Motion <br />passed. <br />Butler stated that she did not wish to revise her motion. <br />She said, "I adopted the recommendation in its entirety. If that <br />is what the 'Pioneer' indicated, that is correct." <br />Mayor Peterson stated that the problem now is that the <br />newspaper said one thing,. and the letter to Long Lake indicated <br />something else. She also stated that Council only accepted the <br />recommendation at the March 2 =5, 1991, meeting, and that the <br />document presented for adoption this evening, excludes the last <br />paragraph of the Planning Commission's recommendation. <br />Butler stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation <br />was adopted, in its entirety at their March 25, 1991 meeting, and <br />that, in her opinion, adopting and accepting are the same thing. <br />Bellows added* that her understanding of Councilmember <br />Butler's motion was just as Councilmembe-s Butler and Callahan <br />understood. it. She added that the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation included a statement about possibly merging with <br />the City of Long L =ice because the Planning Commission was asked <br />to'address that issue. <br />Bernhardson stated that the last paragraph had been deleted <br />from the re- formatted draft presented this evening, but that it <br />could be added back in if that is Council's-wish. <br />Jabbour 'ask-ad BarreL:t what the next stap i n this <br />reconsideration process should be. <br />Barrett responded, "It is my opinion that Council may either <br />take a vote otz the motion as formed, to see if Council still <br />wants to support that position.. or you m .J_ght,, in the alternative. <br />propose an amendment to that motion and take a vote." I • <br />Butler added, "My understanding of a motion to reconsider is <br />that it, is effect, sets aside, and to some extent negates the <br />motion that was made, seconded and adopted unanimously two weeks <br />ago." <br />Barrett s::ated that a :notion to reconsider re -opens the <br />questions again so that Council is free to vote on the issue, and <br />is not bound by the previous vote. <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Callahan, that the <br />motion made by Councilmember B--.tler, as understood by <br />Councilmember Butler, stand as made, which adopts the Planning <br />- 19 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.