My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-22-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
06-22-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:42:29 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:33:41 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.
/
372
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 JUNE 8,1998 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - SANDY SMITH, REPRESENTATIVE <br />Commissioner Smith had no comments. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />There were no public comments. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />(#5) »^308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - PRD & CLASS Hi <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />Moorse reported that the Settlement Agreement proposed by Brook Park Realty addres.ses the initial <br />20 units but doesn't tie the additional 10 units to the provision of access to County Road 15. The <br />property owners are proposing a number of triggers for the additional 10 units that would not <br />necessarily gain access to County Road 15. The City Attorney has responded that access to County <br />Road 15 is a necessary condition. <br />Bill Gleason, representative of the property owners, stated that he was unaware of the year 2001 date <br />being added as a trigger. <br />Jabbour responded that the City has tried to act in good faith to allow Brook Park to have a building <br />permit prior to the load limits being removed. He understood that a verbal agreement had been <br />reached three meetings ago, and now the landowner is not in agreement. <br />Gleason stated that his understanding was that the road would be connected at some time in the <br />future and the City would use their best efforts to work toward that end. He thought the letter was <br />to be drafted with more specific language regarding what would happen but he was surprised at the <br />addition of the 2001 date when the wording came back from their attorney. <br />Jabbour asked the applicant what he would like Council to do. <br />Gleason requested that the application be tabled for one more meeting and attempt to work on the <br />language. <br />Jabbour commented that if the developer built 10 units in each of the next three years, the project <br />would be complete by 2001 and that date would be irrelevant in the Agreement. Gleason responded <br />that their goal was to build 30 units in one year, and they could still get 20 built this year.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.