My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-2007 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
11-26-2007 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 4:09:13 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 3:59:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
• <br />i 1 <br />LJ <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 26, 2007 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #07 -3336 Marc Ashton With John Terrance;Homes, LLC, On Behalf of Mitch Cook of Central <br />Bank and Larry Pal of LGL Real Estate <br />final approvals, they could approve the applic <br />and approval. If the Council determines final <br />tabled to the December 10"' meeting. <br />Murphy stated when he arrived for tonight's i <br />saw for the first time tonight and that his first <br />Stonebay Outlot A, Continued) <br />subject to Staff/City Attorney /City Engineer review <br />are premature, then the application should be <br />he had some concerns regarding the memo that he <br />ination was to table the application. Murphy stated it <br />appears that the primary issues relate to money and that in his view it just seems this application is being <br />rushed through the system. Murphy asked Staff if they feel this application is being moved too fast <br />through the process and whether all issues have <br />Cook stated one of the reasons for today's meet <br />today's meeting was very helpful in clarifying 1 <br />developers agreements would basically be the z <br />documents. The original agreement required th <br />would be eliminated with the two development <br />Mattick stated in principal Staff agrees with the <br />payment of the fees. If the two sites are develop <br />the two development agreements, that helps to k <br />distinct. The new development contracts would) <br />but there may be some requirements that would i <br />The bank lot does need to tie into the other lot, v <br />included in the two development agreements. <br />Mattick stated the two issues before the Council <br />feel it is fair to pay fees on property that they do <br />the plat until the fees are paid up front. The Cit} <br />agent, with the closing agent releasing the mylar <br />given the securities that it is requesting. Mattick <br />processes an application, in his view this is a rea <br />addressed adequately. <br />was to figure out exactly where they were at and that <br />issues. Cook stated the concept of separating the <br />eement that they already have but in two separate <br />John Terrance Homes consent to certain items, which <br />ints raised and that the major issue relates to the <br />simultaneously, a staging plan is required and with <br />i each developer's responsibilities separate and <br />very similar to what is currently before the Council <br />to be added in terms of the phasing of the project. <br />is not currently addressed and would need to be <br />ire: One, payment of all fees up front. LGL does not <br />iot currently own but the City is not willing to record <br />could sign the mylars, release them to the closing <br />for recording and at the same time the City being <br />stated while this is not the way the City normally <br />onable request and would address the developer's <br />PAGE 19 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.