My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:47 AM
Creation date
9/8/2025 1:04:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
6/27/1988
Retention Effective Date
9/8/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
622
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
JTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 1988 <br />REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE AMIENDMIENT-FENCE HEIGHT CONTINUED <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified that the code <br />currently does not allow the post height of fences to <br />exceed 3-1/2'. <br />Planning Commissioner Bellows felt that the openess of a <br />fence should be considered in conjunction with the <br />allowable fence height. She felt that the post height <br />for a split rail fence would almost have to exceed 3- <br />1/2' in height, but the cross rails could be limited to <br />3-1/2' in height. <br />Acting Mayor Callahan felt that Mr. Hollander's comments <br />regarding the height of split rail fences is a <br />legitimate complaint. <br />Council directed staff to draft language to amend the <br />fence height ordinance for Council to review and pass on <br />to the Planning Commission to review and make a <br />recommendation on amending the ordinance. <br />STOBBS BAY - FEASIBILITIY UPDATE <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained the issue of <br />determining whether the Council wants to undertake an <br />updating of the feasibility report for the inclusion of <br />areas not previously included in the 1964 study. The <br />cost for the feasibility report would be $4,500.00. <br />Councilmember Sime felt strongly that Council should <br />first determine the affected resident interest in having <br />this feasibility study done prior to authorizing the <br />study. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated there <br />would likely be a mixture of support and opposition from <br />the affected residents to the issue of installing <br />municipal sewer. <br />Acting Mayor Callahan agreed with Gaffron, and stated <br />that the Council must ultimately decide if the study is <br />necessary. He also voiced concern with the City being <br />nickled and dimed for different types of feasibility <br />studies. <br />Councilmember Sime stated he did not believe the City <br />should spend more money until the probability of doing <br />the project is determined. He voiced concern with the <br />City handling this study in a better way than the <br />Crystal Bay sewer project was handled. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson stated that knowing the <br />cost of the project may have an impact on the support <br />and opposition of the project. <br />11 <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.