My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-24-2003 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
02-24-2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2012 9:54:28 AM
Creation date
5/16/2012 9:54:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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, February 24, 2003 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued <br />Sansevere asked if this could be streamlined at the application level. <br />Since many applicants have different ideas of what they should be able to do with their property <br />and what they consider a hardship, Gaffron indicated that even when staff informs them they don't <br />have adequate hardship they wish to proceed. Typically, Gaffron stated that by the time an <br />application reaches the Planning Commission, it is in its 3rd or 4th design phase. <br />Nygard pointed out that, if the Council meetings were broadcast, it might be helpful to residents to <br />observe the process before deciding to proceed with an application. They might have a better grasp <br />of what is typically allowed in Orono. <br />White indicated that, oftentimes, Orono must compete with what other cities allow, which is a <br />problem when people come to file an application and believe they should get what someone else in <br />another lake community is allowed. <br />Murphy asked if the expectation had changed. <br />Mayor Peterson believed that, in many instances, it has and people believe they should get more. <br />Fritzler pointed out that some owners are getting into trouble assuming that their contractors know <br />what is allowed and that they play by the rules, which is not always the case. • <br />Nygard maintained that most people have no idea what is allowed or happening until they come in <br />to request an application. <br />Sansevere inquired if staff supplied people with information about what is required, and suggested <br />that a separate sheet be created to emphasize the need to provide stronger hardships or the <br />application likely won't pass. <br />Gaffron stated that staff has often gone so far as to tell people that their applications have very little <br />chance of passing, and still people wish to proceed. He indicated that what staff needs most is <br />consistency to support their position and to point to when recommending someone not pursue <br />something. <br />Attorney Barrett stated that, while offering and giving advice is good, the City should shy away <br />from totally discouraging individuals from their due process. Staff should provide applicants with <br />advice and recommendations, but Barrett cautioned making it too tough for people to get an <br />application. <br />McDermott suggested they make it a policy that individuals are allowed 20 minutes to make their <br />case. <br />Gaffron stated that, typically, the Commission hears the staff report, they ask for public comment <br />and the applicant's comments, make a motion, and discuss it. <br />• <br />PAGE 4 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.