My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-19-1985 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
08-19-1985 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 1:19:58 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 1:19:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
HIHUTBS OF TUB PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ADGOST 19, 1985. PAGE 8 <br />1950 ROVBGNO continued <br />Conunission member Goetten stated that she feels that the <br />fence does not meet the intent and standards of Section 10.03 <br />Subdivision 15 (C) and agrees will Sime. <br />Commission member Taylor stated that he agrees with the <br />applicant’s contention that the fence conforms with Section <br />10,03 Subdivision 15 (C), <br />Commission member McDonald stated that she agreed with Sime <br />and Goetten. <br />Chairman Callahan stated he agreed with Sime, Goetten, and <br />McDonald. Callahan stated that he felt Section 10.03 <br />Subdivision 15 (C) was not referring to Rovegno's type of <br />property and didn’t consider his kind of problem. <br />Coi^ission member Sime stated that in addition to Section <br />9.22 permitting a public nuisance, he felt that this fence is <br />endangering the safety of those using the public access under <br />Section 9.21 a public nuisance. <br />Mr. Rovegno stated that the public access at the end of Spates <br />Ave. was a public nuisance, whether his fence is there or not. <br />The ruling of the Planning Commission was 4-1 to deny the <br />appeal and find that staff’s interpretation of the ordinance <br />is correct. Sime, Goetten, McDonald, and Callahan in favor <br />of denial. Taylor against denial. <br />#952 PRANK KOKESH <br />4100 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OP STOCK FARM <br />AND HOME OCCUPATION SECTIONS <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Neither Mr. Kokesh or his attorney were present for this <br />matter. Because of his absence, it was moved by Callahan, <br />seconded by Goetten, to table this matter until the Sepi ember <br />16th meeting. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />Earl and Betty Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, were present for <br />this matter. Chairman Callahan agreed to hear them but <br />informed them that no action would be taken at this meeting. <br />Mr. Dorn stated that Mr. Kokesh’s operation has been in <br />violation for years and the city has failed to do anythinq <br />about It until now. He feels that residents should receive <br />equal treatment. <br />Chairman Callahan assured Mr. Dorn that if the applicant <br />fails to appear at the next meeting action wi 11 be taken in his absence.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.