My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-25-1999 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1997-1999
>
1999
>
01-25-1999 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2023 2:20:47 PM
Creation date
4/6/2023 1:31:31 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.
/
321
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JANUARY 11,1999 <br />(#7) #2426 GEORGE STICKNEY, 4XX WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH • continued <br />Flint said the park dedication fee ordinance states that if you subdivide one large lot into four lots, <br />you pay four park dedication fees and receive a credit for the previously paid fee. If the first <br />subdivision had occurred under the new ordinance, his predecessor would have paid a lot more <br />money when the existing lot was created so the credit would be a lot more. <br />Kelley feels the applicant should be assessed one park dedication fee for one lot. <br />Sansevere agreed with Kelley. He feels that if a $250 park dedication fee was previously paid, it <br />should be grandfathered in as one of the fees for the two lots. <br />City Attorney Barrett said that the $250 paid as a park dedication fee at the time of the subdivision <br />which created the lot he now seeks to subdivide, gives him a right to build a house on that land. The <br />City’s interpretation of the ordinance has been that if there is no house, then his further decision to <br />subdivide again and create two new houses, gives him only a credit and not a right to a bye on one <br />of the lots. <br />Stickney feels that as the owner of one parcel splitting off one lot, there should be a different <br />interpretation than for a developer who is developing eight or ten lots. <br />Barrett said another issue is which lot gets the credit when two lots are created, one very expensive <br />lot and one less expensive lot. <br />Flint asked if there is a precedent for this matter. <br />Moorse stated there is no precedent under the new ordinance, only the old ordinance. <br />Sansevere asked the applicant which lot he wants to pay the park dedication fee on. <br />Stickney said he is going to dwell on the larger lot. <br />Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to direct staff to amend Resolution #4200 to reflect a <br />park dedication fee of $4,900 and to prepare a new resolution approving the plat of Willow <br />Knoll, File No. 2426. <br />Flint asked what the Council is going to do with the park dedication fee for larger developments. <br />Will they be allowed one free lot that will not be assessed a park dedication fee? <br />Sansevere stated it would not be free because a park dedication fee has already been paid on this <br />property. <br />Flint stated that most of the property in Orono has had at least one subdivision sometime in the past. <br />Page 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.