My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-28-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
11-28-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 2:01:52 PM
Creation date
1/12/2023 1:53:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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 />Moaday, November 14,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.in. <br />(Gate Height Appeal, Coatlaaed) <br />McMillan state** it was an application to appeal an existing code interpretation. <br />Barrett stated it was his recollection that the CouiKi] thought it was good to spend some time discussing <br />height of gates as a policy matter, but at the time the application originally came before the Council, there <br />was no reference to gate height in the City's ordinaiKes. <br />White commented the Council also wanted information on whether the gates could be modified. <br />Peterson noted they were also unaware that there were two gates involved. <br />Gundlach pointed out the City’s ordinance does not address the number of gates that would be allowed. <br />Munihy inquired whether the Council should approve the application since there is no referetKe to gate <br />hei^t restrictions in the current city ordinance. <br />Barrett stated the City should accept the qrpeal since it is a reasonable request and that the current city <br />ordiiumce does not contain any restrictions on gate height. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the property owner reviewed the City’s ordinances prior to ordering the gates. <br />Zisla stated he does not know whether the owner reviewed the ordinances pirior to ordering die gates. <br />Zisla indicated he is in agreement with the City Attorney. <br />Barrett noted if the heif^t of the gate is changed after the appeal is granted, it would require a variance <br />and ttiat the law covering this qiplication is the law in existence at the time the application was submitted. <br />McMillan awved, Murphy seconded, to grant the appeal and to allow the coastmetion of the gates <br />as reqnaitod la the bnlMlag permit application far the property located at 1535 Bohn’s Point Road, <br />with the understanding that thb app^ should not hnpede the City’s soon to be adopted ^tc <br />ordinance. VOTE: AyesS,Nayst. <br />MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT <br />Sansevere stated he would like to receive regular updates fitim City Staff on complaints by the citizens. <br />Sansevere noted he was totally unaware of the situatian being experienced by (' : Andersons and that it <br />would have been hel|rfbl to be infbrmed about it prior to tonic’s meeting. <br />Sansevere requested that the City Administrator assist the Mayor in the drafting of the letter to the CEO <br />of the maurance company regarding this matter. Sansev ere stated if the City does not receive satisfaction <br />from their insurance company on this matter, diat the City should consider changing companies. <br />P^9 <br />n
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.