My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
08-22-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 10:22:30 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 10:19:26 AM
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.
/
283
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
vi < 1 j * J ^ <br />POPHAM HAIK N1FM0R.\XM2M. <br />330(1 P;ner Jainay Tov-er <br />222 Soucii Ninih Sieci <br />Minriccpolis. Mauicscta 5f-02 <br />(512) 533-iSOO <br />VLA facsimile <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />RE; <br />DATE; <br />Jean Mabusth. Citv ’ of Orono <br />Kevin P. Staunion^^VAf^ <br />Truchinski CondidJnal Use Permit Application <br />July 18. 1994 <br />I am wnting in response to your request for advice on the above-referenced matter. <br />You initially asked us to look into wo issues arising out of the Truchinski application. First, <br />you asked for analysis of attorney Robert Mitchell’s June 20. 1994 letrei regarding the law <br />20vemin^ the Ciry*s abiliw to deny the application lor a conditional use pennit. Mr. Mitchell <br />represents Mi. and Mrs. David D. MacMillan. Mr. Truchinski’s neiglibors. Since your <br />original request, you have indicated that you no longer want an analysis of Mr. Mitchell s <br />opinion. We have discontinued our v-'ovk on that analysis. Please note, however, that our <br />preliminary analysis is not entirely consistent with Mr. Mitchell’s analysis of the issue. Let <br />me know ’ if you would like work on this issue completed. <br />Your second inquiry related to Mr. Tmchinski’s request for a variance regarding the <br />location of his radio tower. .Apparently, the radio tower is locatad close enough to die <br />adjoining property (owned by Mr. and Mrs. David MacMillan) that, were it to fall, it could <br />fall on to the MacMillan’s propeny. pcientialiy causing damage there. .Although the current <br />locauon of the radio tower is closer to the adjoining property than is allowed by the code <br />(and consequently. Mr. Tmehmski needs a variance), the terrain of the applicant’s property is <br />such that placement of the radio tower on a portion of the propeny which would comply with <br />the code would require the tower to be positioned on higher ground than its current ocation. <br />therebv resulting m an ultimate heigfit above sea level that is higher than the current eighL <br />Although the neighbors at one point had objected to the height of the tower at its present <br />location. d;ey have made it clear that they prefer the tower in its present location tor aes v- c <br />reasons. <br />219/22051-98 ■7/18.'9J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.