My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
07-15-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:04:08 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 4:00:05 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.
/
384
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />~ ■ MECTINGHELD ON JULY 14,1997 <br />L <br />(M • #2246 Donald Currier, Xr. • Continued) <br />Currier mformed FUnt that the antenna could not be nested or raised in the location <br />required due to the trees. He noted the surv^ shows the trees plotted that are affected <br />the antenna and the tree cover then drawn in. <br />Jabbour noted that the ability to have a nested antenna is more visibly attractive than an <br />antenna that must be fiilly extended at all times. Currier said trees would still have to be <br />removed to allow for the fully extended antenna. <br />Jabbour was informed that the neighbor in whose yard the anterma would fall, if it would <br />topple, gave his approval. <br />Flint questioned why the antenna caniK>t be moved 15' further along the same line noting <br />the surv ey does not indicate trees in that area. Currier smd the tree cover is located there <br />and would result in the loss of a lotus tree. <br />Jabbour was informed that the horizontal vridth is a 34' manmum with a 20* long boom. <br />Flint was told that the antenna is directional motorized by a rotor. <br />In answer to the question of how dose the neighbor's structures are to the north property <br />line^ Moorse said a letter indicates that the area is ungroomed without any structures. <br />Kelley questioned what would happen if that property owner wanted to buUd a garage in <br />that location. Currier said the neighbor told him he could put the antenna on the property <br />line if he wanted to. Goetten reported that if the ndghboring property was sold, the <br />antenna could create problems for the new owner. KeDey suggested a call option be <br />placed on the anterma if that were to occur. Barrett indicated that this would be difBcuH <br />to enforce. <br />Peterson was informed that there were a couple other antennas in the City and no <br />problems have been reported. The only other retractable antenna that was on a property <br />in the City was remov^ when the resident moved. Jabbour said he feels the retractable <br />antenna is a great idea. Currier indicated he would like to maintain the trees to lessen the <br />visual impact. <br />Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3925 per the Planning <br />Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Flint. <br />(#5) #224S DAVm AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE- <br />RESOLUTION NO. 3926 <br />• ' <br />David Rahn was present.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.