Laserfiche WebLink
LJ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 11, 2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(Extension of Moratorium, Continued) <br />for this property and that he is very concerned about losing the opportunity to obtain dirt from the <br />highway project. <br />James stated he hopes by giving the Council a little bit of background concerning this property the <br />Council can understand where he is coming from. James stated in his opinion there has been a subversion <br />of the democratic process in this instance. James commented in his view it is very indicative of this <br />whole thing that he was sitting at his residence at 5:30 p.m. and received a call from somebody at <br />Brenwood, not the City, notifying him that there would be a moratorium adopted by the City. James <br />stated he does not understand the process where his property can be discussed and he is not notified of the <br />meetings. <br />James indicated he has spoken with Mr. Shardlow and has seen a copy of the letter that contains his <br />proposals. James noted that letter discussed all the steps and processes the City should follow but there <br />was not one mention in the letter about contacting the property owner about what he would like to do with <br />his property. There was also no mention of a public hearing being held or notifying the property owner. <br />James commented in his opinion that is shameful. <br />James stated he is here tonight to ask what it is the City is so afraid of concerning this property. James <br />stated he has given up his vision for this property and has been attempting to work towards the City's <br />vision, but that the City needs to be open with the property owner concerning their plans for this piece of <br />property or any other piece of property. James indicated in his opinion he has a right to be notified of <br />• what plans the City has for this property. <br />• <br />Sansevere stated he was opposed to the type of density that was being proposed at the time the developer <br />made his presentation and that he could not envision that for this area. Sansevere commented the City <br />cannot allow a property owner to do whatever the owner would like to do with a parcel of property and <br />that property owners need to have some guidelines concerning development that should be followed. <br />Sansevere commented in his view this is a nice piece of property and will be attractive to whoever lives <br />on it someday, but that the density being proposed was too high in his opinion. <br />James stated he does not have a problem with the concept of zoning, but that he is speaking to the process <br />where he has not been invited to give input concerning the decisions being made on his property. <br />Sansevere stated it is also his belief that more properties are impacted by this moratorium than just this <br />parcel and that it is the entire corridor to the west of this property that the City is looking at with this <br />moratorium. Sansevere indicated the City would like to create a vision that ties these properties together <br />and that the moratorium enables Staff to look at what is best for this area. Sansevere noted the City is <br />also looking at the apple orchard property and how that possibly might be developed in the future. <br />McMillan stated another piece of property under this moratorium is the land east of the Long Lake Fire <br />Station. <br />James inquired what has been accomplished with this moratorium in the last six months and what Staff <br />hopes to accomplish in the next six months. <br />PAGE 3 <br />