Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — DECEMBER 9, 1991 <br />#1691 & #1702 — CONT. <br />Roos explained that they have tried to be sensitive to the <br />neighbors' concerns. Goetten noted the Council has appreciated <br />their efforts. <br />Butler directed comments to the proposed covenants. She noted <br />that in Covenants #3 (B) it suggests that structures listed not <br />extend more than 6' above grade level. She suggested that be <br />reduced to 3'. _ <br />Butler noted Covenant #8 be filled in to read "not to exceed 3 <br />1/2 feet in height" to be in keeping with the allowable fence <br />height. <br />Callahan asked that condition #1 be explained in regards to <br />"monetary damages ". <br />Barrett explained that this provides for the City to get an <br />injunction whether or not there are monetary damages. <br />Roos commented on condition #9, home occupations, and asked which <br />would be allowed. <br />Barrett noted that home occupations which definitely interfere <br />with the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood would be in <br />conflict with the covenants proposed. He noted that the City has <br />been granted an extension from the Municipal Board until late <br />January to come to acceptable terms for development. He <br />suggested that Council adopt the resolution which gives authority <br />to continue the subdivision process and establishes guidelines <br />for the development of covenants. <br />Mabusth noted that Page 6, Item 4 and Page 7, Item 9, need to be <br />changed to read "Orono Orchard Road" rather than Orono Oaks <br />Drive. <br />Callahan asked what condition #9 meant. <br />Barrett explained it is establishing control over Orono Orchard <br />Road, which will remain within Orono, so as not to create doubt <br />regarding maintenance of said road. <br />Butler suggested the elimination of everything other than the <br />first sentence of condition #2 on Page 6 of the resolution. <br />It was moved by Callahan, seconded by*Butler, to adopt Resolution <br />#3051, with the appropriate amendments as follows: to eliminate <br />everything but the first sentence of Condition #2 on Page 6; to <br />amend Condition #9 to more clearly indicate the intent of the <br />condition; and to change Conditions #4 and #9 -to read Orono <br />Orchard Road rather than Orono Oaks Drive. Ayes 3, nays �2. <br />Jabbour and Peterson voted nay because they felt a maximum number <br />of units from future development to the north should be defined. <br />. <br />