My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-10-2015 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
08-10-2015 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2015 9:52:36 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 9:51:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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, August 10, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock pm. <br />9. #15-3754 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPROVAL <br />EXTENSIONS (continued) <br />Walsh stated if it is a money issue, they could maybe be charged half the normal fee, but that in his view <br />five years is too long. <br />McMillan stated she has gone back and forth on the time period and that neighbors do change or want the <br />project revisited after some time has passed. McMillan stated perhaps a total of three years would be <br />more appropriate. <br />Walsh stated he would be more comfortable starting with three years given the public input component. <br />McMillan stated she wants some consistency across the board and that she is okay going with two or <br />three. <br />Walsh noted that would be a total of two extensions, which is reasonable. <br />Barnhart stated the original approval lasts for a year. <br />Walsh stated they would then get a total of three years. <br />Gaffron stated the City has had a number of applications where they have been extended multiple times, <br />such as Morrie's and the bank. <br />Levang stated she does not want to penalize anyone because of their age or the economic downturn, and <br />that she is not sure she is comfortable with three years. <br />Mattick asked if it was always a one-year approval previously. <br />Gaffron indicated it was always a one-year approval and that Staff in the past could administratively <br />approve one more year. After that it goes before the City Council. Staff has had questions whether it <br />should go back before the Planning Commission or whether a new resolution should be drafted when it <br />has been extended a number of times. <br />Levang asked what each extension costs. <br />Gaffron stated to his knowledge it is $350. <br />McMillan noted an extension also does not require as thorough of a process. <br />Printup stated the Council could also be flexible on the fee. <br />Gaffron stated the majority of the applications do not require an extension. <br />McMillan stated the initial one year plus two extensions gives three years for someone to get their project <br />done. <br />Cornick asked if that would solve the problem in Staff's view. <br />Page 24 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.