Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 24, 2006 t <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(6.#05-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, X860 SHORELINEDRIVE, Contit:iced) <br />Mayor Peterson and Murphy agreed. <br />Gaffron interjected stating that a stop work order had been placed on the property today regarding a <br />tower that had gone up on the site. As it is not a flag pole, utility pole, and is not allowed in the <br />LR1A district, it is not an allowed pole and must be removed. Gaffron pointed out that there is a <br />48 hour removal mandate and a concern that should be addressed by City Code at a later date. <br />Broitzman stated that he had asked Inspector Oman about putting up a temporary pole and what the <br />permit process was. <br />Gaffron stated that Oman did not recall a conversation about the purpose of the pole outside the <br />allowed uses and size. !. <br />McMillan asked what the applicant's intent for the pole was. <br />Broitzman stated that he had planned to photograph a time lapsed sequence on DVD of the house <br />burn and reconstruction. <br />I <br />Murphy commented that this is no temporary light pole or flag pole and is consistent with how the <br />story line has gone thus far, he asked how the City can continue to go down this'path with this • <br />applicant and stated that it must be removed. j <br />Nelson stated that it was his understanding from the applicant that the fire department had put up <br />the pole to tape the burn and that it would be coming down right after that. <br />Broitzman asked what was allowed. <br />Gaffron stated that a 30' high flag pole is allowed, though no webcams on poles throughout the <br />city, especially in a residential neighborhood are allowed. Even antennas, which this isn't, are <br />required to be set inside the lot line with a setback at least as tall as the pole itself, which this is not. <br />White moved, Sansevere seconded, to table the application pending further information and <br />for redesign purposes of the applicant. <br />Gaffron pointed out that the 6 month review period was near and should be extended an additional <br />30 days. <br />Broitzman stated that he would sign an extension. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />PAGE 6of10 <br />is <br />