My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
07-08-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:15:41 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:21 AM
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.
/
264
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 24,2002 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2780 OTTENBROTHERS NURSERY- Continued) <br />Mr. Onen stated that, at one time, he and the neighbors were civil, and the trees he placed along <br />the property line to create the screen were for both he and them, and he had felt at the time if <br />they overlapped this was not an issue. <br />Mr. Walvatne objected to the choice of trees used and pointed out that some have since died over <br />the past 1 0 years. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that in the City’s view. Mr. Otten has done what was requested of him and <br />is still willing to seek mediation. <br />Sansevere reiterated the question, why this issue is before the Council if Mr. Otten is in <br />compliance. He believed it was not the Council ’s place to get involved. <br />Mayor Peterson again stated that white Otten Brothers is in compliance, the argument is, if <br />initially, the PUD should have gone further. <br />Mr. Walvatne maintained that the equipment creates excessive noise. <br />Sansevere repeated that this has nothing to do with the application and should not be part of the <br />PUD amendment. <br />Murphy asked Mr. Walvatne if he would like Otten Brothers to get rid of their front-end loader. <br />He asked what the underlying issues might be. <br />Mr. Walvatne maintained that after monitoring, the front-end loader exceeded acceptable decibel <br />ratings by 1 decibel, and stated that he would like to see Ottens get a new loader. <br />Murphy argued that the average person cannot distinguish between three decibels. <br />Mr. Walvatne stated that, in 1989, the noise that might potentially be generated by the front-end <br />loader was a concern even upon its approval. He slated that the noise is constant and can be <br />heard even within his home. Mr. Walvatne questioned the need for a piece of equipment that <br />size. <br />Mr. O’Reilly maintained that a bobcat would not suffice and would take ten times longer. <br />Mr. Otten suggested checking to see if the reverse beeping mechanism volume could be changed. <br />Mr. Walvatne stated that he is not alone in his complaint. <br />Murphy pointed out that he was the only one present. Murphy then asked who would pay for <br />mediation services. <br />PAGE 7 of 17 <br />-IW.--------
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.