My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
10-14-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2024 9:46:31 AM
Creation date
7/16/2024 9:41:49 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.
/
273
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
'V <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONT. <br />Mabusth replied that there Is nothing in the code which <br />addresses this type of storage. She asked about screening. <br />Simonson noted that he has visited the site where they will <br />be stored and felt it was very well screened from the public. <br />Barrett felt that this Is a permitted use. <br />the cars were abandoned the City could proceed <br />proceedings to have them removed. <br />He felt that If <br />with hazardous <br />Mabusth asked that the organization contact the Building <br />Department for appropriate permits. <br />(#4) #1573 CAROL KELLY/JAMES MASSEY <br />3020 & 3030 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />REQUEST FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING PARK FEE <br />FINAL SUBDIVISION <br />Carol Kelly was present for this application. <br />Moorse explained that this is an application for final <br />subdivision to create three lots. He noted that the applicant is <br />disputing the valuation place on the property In regard^ to the <br />park dedication fee and when that fee Is to be paid. <br />Mabusth explained that the first subdivision request <br />Involved creation of a non-riparian lot.The applicant then <br />combined property with Mr. Massey to gain a riparian lot. She <br />noted that when the park dedication ordinance went Into effect, <br />It noted that all applications not filed by May 1st were to be <br />calculated under the new ordinance.Ms. Kelly's <br />application made the deadline but the second application did not. <br />Kelly feels the valuation Is too high and wants to know If she <br />should go ahead and have a now appraisal.Kelly Is also asking <br />that the park dedication foe be paid at the time of Issuance of <br />the building permit. <br />Barrett noted that the memo suggests that the assessor <br />thinks the vaulatlon may bo too high. <br />Mabusth questioned the assessor and ho reported that If the <br />applicant fools It Is too high, the applicant should come back <br />with a second appraisal. <br />Jabbour noted that If the market value Is reduced, the <br />applicant would have to go through the abatement process to <br />reduce that value.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.