My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-12-1998 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-12-1998 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2012 4:09:10 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 4:09:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 <br />( #5 - #2275 Ted and Myrna Wolf - Continued) <br />Gaffron indicated the park dedication fee is .a two -part process, derived from the fair market <br />value of the new lot as determined by the assessor, and the park fee is established as 8% of this <br />value. An existing lot with an existing house is excluded. If no house exists, then the fee <br />pertains to all lots. The value is on a pre- development basis. The question arose of whether <br />there is a cap to the amount. <br />Goetten voiced her feeling that the questions arising from park dedication should be resolved and <br />the ordinance changed if changes are necessary. Goetten said her position, until the ordinance is <br />officially changed, is to vote against applications where park dedication is an issue. <br />Jabbour said the Council needs to operate as determined by the guidelines set and negotiate with <br />the applicants until the ordinance changes have been made. <br />Barrett said the current ordinance is satisfactory as long as an individual decision is made on the <br />impact of rough proportionality. The flat 8% fee does not allow for this to occur resulting in the <br />need to individually discuss each application. The guidelines need to be set with the land <br />variations within the City and a cap established. <br />• Jabbour said he is satisfied with the City's proposed cap based on the information provided by <br />Staff, discussions, and what has occurred in other applications. He feels the City's position can <br />be justified. However, Jabbour said he does not wish to place an applicant in a hardship position. <br />The lower amount should be agreed to or the applicant revisited regarding the amount of park <br />dedication. <br />is <br />Goetten said she would like the Council to make a decision as it would be unfair to the applicant <br />to delay the application further and reflect on the Council's integrity. Jabbour acknowledged that <br />the issue must be addressed in order for the Council to work as a team. <br />Jabbour asked if the resolution can be passed and the park dedication fee amended. Barrett said <br />the problem with that is the plat will have been filed creating difficulty in amending the park <br />dedication fee. He suggested the park dedication fee could be placed in escrow with the final <br />amount to be determined in the future. Goetten felt that would not be acceptable to her. <br />Flint said, while waiting for the re- drafting of the ordinance, determination has been made as <br />called for by the legislature, and the Council should apply the maximum. The lot's impact on the <br />park system has been determined and would be satisfactory but Flint said he is unaware of what <br />is the maximum amount. <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.