12-10-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 22, 1990 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUEDMr. James MacKinnon, Attorney, stated that his lawfirm had initially represented an individual involved in tne lawsuit referred to by Mr. Gehrman. Ke said, "The matter with respect to the City arose because there was mformatian that led us to conclude that the City undertook a special duty. That can arise when a city does not do what it normally does to design something for somebody’s house, but goes over and above. ^y taking cn this special duty, the city then has a certain obligation. If they do not do it properly then can they can be subject to suit. We sued the City of Orono. After that, I did some investigation, which included speaking to Jeanne Mabusth and Mike Gaffron. I found out through them that the City did not undertake any special duty. They treated the Mayor exactly like they treat every citizen in Orono. Based on Mike and Jeanne's expressions to me, and based on the fact that my clients did not wish to spend a large amount on the lawsuit, we decided not to fight the Summary Judgment. The matter was dropped because I determined that what we had originally thought was a bonafide suit ended up not to be. With respect to the actions and cost to the City, it was the conclusion of our lawfirm that nothing irresponsible had been done. '* ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT; #1334 REBERS CONSTRUCTION - SUGARWOODS PLAT RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF PRD APPROVAL Mr. Sid Rebers, fir. Stephen Pflaum, Attorney Kost, Planning Consultant, were present. ana Mr. Robert Bernhardson explained the present conditions of the PRD for dj^iveways, and Mr. Reber' s request to have those conditions reconsidered. He stated that there will be a number of lots that will be unable to maet the existing PRD requirements. Bernhardson said, "The Developer is making t.nis request so that he will have more flexibility in designing tnese individual driveways without having to go through a Variance process for each. Several templates have been designed by Staff and BRW for use in such cases.' If the owner of the property did not wish to use the templates, a review by the Planning Commission and Council would be necessary. The Planning C-^mmission reviewed the templates, but felt it was their responsibility to review each of these cases individually. The Planning Commission was concerned about tree preservation." Mr. Pflaum said, "There were two key issues iSugarwoods Development. Minimal hardcover and maximu.m tree protection. From discussion I have had with Chairman Kelley, it appears that hardcover is not an issue here. . However, tree preservation continues to be a concern. During the planning and review process, consideration was not given to the ramifications that may result from the requirement for a maximum driveway width - 23 -