Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 22,1996 <br />(US- Melanie Rose - Continued) <br />Hurr asked that Staff continue the policy on requiring a survey. She said a survey was an <br />investment that goes with a property. She did not agree with Staff being sent out to the <br />properly and noted the necessity of a surv ey Goetten agreed. Jabbour said the applicant <br />had made an incorrect assumption assuming that mortgage approval means the property <br />is in 100^4 compliance with setbacks He asked that this be explained to the applicant. <br />Callahan said he hesitated to deny the request without the presence of the applicant and <br />suggested tabling the application with Moorse giving direction of the Council for a sense <br />of the need for a survey Moorse clarified that even if a deck does meet the setback <br />requirements, a survey w'ould still be required Callahan said if a survey requirement was <br />not followed, it would present problems with other applicants as well. He noted that this <br />was not the final decision but did suggest the survey be completed. Moorse said he <br />would relay that it is the policy of the City to require a surv ey if he is asked. <br />Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to table agenda item #8 to the September meeting of <br />the Council. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT <br />Goetten informed the Council of a request from Mary Butler to allow a property owner <br />to add landscaping to a triangular piece of property owned by the City through tax <br />forfeiture near Casco Avenue and Casco Point Road. She was asked to work through <br />Gerhardson and the Park Commission. No City investment would be required. The <br />property was said to be less than 1/3 acre All agreed it was an excellent idea. <br />Hurr inquired about the status for receiving remuneration from the DNR for lost tax <br />revenue from the Maxwell Bay Access. Callahan noted that the DNR said they would <br />pay what is required by the legislature. Hurr said more than that amount could be paid. <br />It was determined that the County is given a yearly amount and makes the decision on <br />how that money is distributed. Jabbour noted that the law was written for rural <br />properties so this may present a different situation Jabbour was also concerned for the <br />DNR paying twice for the use. Moorse will find out w'hat amount could be paid and to <br />whom; and how the City could obtain the major portion of this amount. <br />Moorse was also asked to respond to a letter from the Putnam’s, whose property is <br />across from the access location. The Putnams said they were not notified of any access <br />being constructed. Kelley asked if they had voiced any objection but no one had spoken <br />with them regarding the access prior to receipt of the letter. Jabbour asked Moorse to <br />contact the Putnams and ask them to call Council members if they wish more <br />information.