My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-23-2015 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
11-23-2015 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2015 9:27:47 AM
Creation date
12/23/2015 9:26:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />discussions the Council had a few weeks ago relating to speed bumps. The applicant would be willing to <br />provide speed bumps if anyone on the City Council, the residents, or the police department feel they are <br />necessary. Malkerson stated all of this totals all sorts of conditions that in his 42 years of experience he <br />has never seen before as it relates to the construction activities for a public project and certainly not for <br />the construction of three homes. Malkerson stated his clients were willing to do it and that they will stand <br />by that offer. <br />On Page 3 it points out that the ordinances of the City do not require any of these things. There is an <br />ordinance concerning the hours of operation of certain equipment, such as diesel or gas -powered <br />machines or equipment. Malkerson noted his client has agreed to more stringent hours than what is <br />commonly allowed. <br />On the top of Page 4, it talks about that in addition to that ordinance, there are different sections that talk <br />about the regulation of streets, sidewalks and other public places. Malkerson noted there are no <br />restrictions anywhere relating to what his client is proposing to do. Malkerson stated there has never been <br />any restriction on what they are proposing to do even though these ordinances address at length the use of <br />public roads and the type of vehicles that can travel on them and the weight of those vehicles. Malkerson <br />stated there are exceptions called out in these ordinances as to the weight of vehicles for residential use or <br />for a project in the City because the drafters and enforcers of these ordinances understood at some point <br />there is a need for heavy trucks to be traveling on the public/city streets in order to have construction. <br />Page 5 notes that the application fully complies with the City's subdivision ordinance. Malkerson stated <br />all aspects are complied with and that the applicant is willing to agree to the conditions even though they <br />are not required by the ordinances. Malkerson stated given all of the ordinances that the City has on the <br />use of public streets, these are the ordinances that apply, and they will comply with them. The <br />subdivision ordinance says they shall comply with other ordinances of the City, but it does not say <br />anywhere in the subdivision ordinance or in any other ordinance that the City can require the developer to <br />construct a separate construction road. Malkerson noted there is no requirement for that in the <br />subdivision ordinance and he does not believe the Council should be led to believe that they have that <br />authority. <br />Malkerson stated Page 7 assumes that the City could interpret the subdivision ordinance that way. Even <br />if that was the case, all of the traffic experts have said the use of the current road is safe now and will be <br />safe during construction, and therefore there is no rational nexus between requiring a road going up and <br />down a steep hill that has to be 20 feet wide. Malkerson stated there is no nexus or relationship between <br />any power the City has in the subdivision ordinance and the ability to require such a road. The policies of <br />the MCWD also say that you should not be disturbing those areas since they do not want to put at risk <br />those bluffs. <br />On the bottom of Page 9, there is a summary of what the expert traffic consultant has said concerning this <br />matter. His comments have been set forth in the minutes and are set forth in the letters from the <br />consultants. The City Engineer and the City's consulting engineer have stated that the road is safe now <br />and will be safe during the construction activity. The applicant's traffic consultant has also provided <br />lengthy testimony to the same effect. <br />Malkerson stated it comes down to two questions: Does the applicant comply with the City's ordinances <br />relating to streets, and the answer is without a doubt yes. Does the applicant comply with the City's <br />subdivision ordinance, and the answer is inescapable that they do indeed. Malkerson stated they would <br />Page 21 of 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.