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 />13. AMEND RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION OFFENSES <br />(continued) <br />Barnhart stated long grass is defined in the code by six inches or longer and that a city inspector with a <br />ruler would identify that. As it relates to a damaged and vacant building, those would be based on the <br />building official's review. <br />Walsh asked if he complains that his neighbor's grass is too long, whether the City is going to fine him <br />that day even if it has rained for five days in a row. <br />Barnhart stated the fine would be the last resort. The first response would be to verify the length and then <br />notify the property owner, who is then given seven days to cut it. After that seven day period, the City <br />will mow it and assess the property owner. <br />Printup asked what the charge would be for that. <br />Barnhart stated the City cut somebody's grass on Friday and that they used hired contractors. Barnhart <br />stated he has not seen that bill yet but that it typically is around $100 to $120 depending on the size of the <br />lot. <br />Walsh asked how a damaged building is defined. <br />Barnhart stated the building inspector would review it based on what the parameters of the code are. <br />Barnhart noted any property owner can appeal a decision. <br />Mattick stated he has not seen damaged buildings come up very often and that it will typically come up in <br />the context of the hazardous building, which is statutorily regulated. <br />McMillan stated in her view it would cover fire, flood, an explosion, or more unusual circumstances. <br />Mattick stated it would typically be a building that has not quite reached the hazardous building status. <br />Walsh stated when things are too vague, they can be used to create havoc with a neighbor and cause them <br />and the City considerable time to deal with. <br />McMillan stated this would be a good step before it reaches the hazardous building stage. <br />Mattick stated typically hazardous buildings are vacant and that issuing a citation probably will not <br />resolve the matter. Mattick stated the City is able to assess costs against hazardous buildings. <br />Barnhart stated the administrative citation is the last step and would be used when people are <br />nonresponsive. <br />Printup asked what the City did with a previous situation where the City would send a letter, followed by <br />a second letter. <br />Mattick indicated that was the re -inspection fee. <br />Page 28 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.