My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-2011 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
02-14-2011 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2012 4:16:08 PM
Creation date
7/26/2012 3:43:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
AH NUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />Monday, February 14, 2011 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(8. BARRY TANNER, 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE — APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE <br />DECISION, Continued) <br />The recently issued sign permits utilize all of the available 40 days for 2011. Mr. Tanner requested a <br />variance be granted to allow additional days for the display of temporary signage. Staff denied this <br />request based on the limitation within the code. On January 19, 2011, the City received an appeal of the <br />Staff decision to allow additional signage days. <br />Staff recommends that Council deny the appeal for additional signage days. Mr. Tanner could explore an <br />agreement with another tenant in.the building. Curtis noted that Mr. Tanner has brought some pictures of <br />his temporary signage. <br />Barry Tanner, Navarre Lanes, stated to his knowledge they have not had any complaints regarding their <br />temporary signage: Navarre Lanes is located in the basement of the building and the temporary signage is <br />necessary to direct patrons to their location. Due to current weather conditions, he is not able to construct <br />the monument sign. Tanner stated if they were not allowed the signage, it would be a huge detriment to <br />his.business. <br />Bremer asked whether Mr. Tanner has discussed the possibility of using other tenants' temporary signage <br />allotment. <br />C, <br />Tanner indicated he was not aware of that option until this evening and that he is requesting a 90 -day • <br />extension. <br />Franchot asked whether Staffs recommendation to deny is based on the variance issue. <br />Curtis indicated it is. <br />Franchot noted due to the Supreme Court ruling regarding variances, the Council is unable at this time to <br />grant a variance. <br />Mattick noted in order for the Council to grant a variance, they would need to make a finding that he <br />would not have reasonable use of his property without the signage. <br />McMillan asked whether this is a variance or a permitting issue. <br />Mattick stated the idea was that he could not apply for a variance, but by asking to extend the 40 days, <br />that would be considered a variance. Mr. Tanner could approach other tenants in the building to see if he <br />could utilize their temporary signage days. The City Council will need to decide whether that is an <br />acceptable approach, but Staff would require confirmation by the other tenants that that is acceptable to <br />them. <br />Bremer stated the Council is currently looking at different ways to deal with the Supreme Court ruling, <br />which greatly limits the Council's ability to grant a variance. The Council does have the ability to allow <br />him to utilize other tenants' temporary signage allotment. <br />• <br />Page 8 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.