My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-1985 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1985
>
10-21-1985 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 2:28:51 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 2:04:48 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
289
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
for <br />ic. <br />HINUTES of the planning commission meeting UELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 8 <br />#950 ROVEGNO 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 />Commission 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 statv-d 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 />1952 frai;k kokesh <br />4100 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OF 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 September <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 anything <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 will be taken in his <br />absence.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.