My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-2019 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2019
>
06-24-2019 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2019 10:28:13 AM
Creation date
9/24/2019 10:23:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
148
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 10, 2019 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />improve the property and it will increase the tax base for the City on land that is currently not generating <br />any revenue for the City. The neighbor that lives on the other side of the right-of-way resides here for <br />only a few months out of the year. <br />Further, at the Planning Commission meeting there was some discussion about emergency access. The <br />point was made that there is ample access to the lake even though there is not free public access. Across <br />the lake there is easy access to the lake, and unless a lot of time and money is spent improving that 50 - <br />foot piece, it will not provide vehicular access to the lake. <br />Paidosh noted 1887 is well over 100 years ago and that he does not know what is going to change, but <br />they are now 120 years out and no one has expressed any interest in it. Paidosh stated he did not have any <br />interest in it for over 20 years, but it was driven out of necessity in building a new house. <br />Walsh stated the City Council relies on the Planning Commission to vet the applications and that he was a <br />little disappointed the Planning Commission did not have all of the information. As a result, the Council <br />becomes the Planning Commission in a sense by having to vet the information. Walsh stated he is <br />concerned and disappointed that this process is a little tainted and that he is not sure how to get around <br />that at this point. <br />Seals stated the applicant's explanation helped clear up the process and it goes back to why everyone is <br />on a different page since it seems like everyone had a different piece of information. After the <br />explanation, it does make sense to vacate it, but that she does not want the City to be apathetic in how <br />they got here. Seals stated they need to do better, and if Staff suggests something, the Planning <br />Commission should feel like they have all the information they need. <br />Rief stated part of the challenge is that the current Comprehensive Plan is where the change happened, <br />and in the previous Comprehensive Plan it was always a no and the current one says that it is a maybe. <br />Staff has discussed about how to go about this better but that they are talking about 100 years of <br />vacations. <br />Seals stated her concern is what would have happened if the applicant had given up. <br />Walsh indicated he spoke with the City Administrator on Friday and asked for Staff to repopulate with <br />some of this specific information. Staff did not do so but the applicant did, which is concerning. <br />Printup asked if the applicant has any pictures of the terrain. <br />Paidosh indicated he does not, but the best way is to look at the drawing gradients. <br />Crosby asked how wide the path is. <br />Paidosh stated you can get a riding mower down it. <br />Johnson asked if the applicant is going to come back to the City Council with a request for a variance if <br />the vacation is approved. <br />Paidosh stated his understanding is that there either there is an average or a point of tangency of the house <br />closest to the lake and the house that is nearby. <br />Page 12 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.