07-22-1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 22, 1996 0 ( #8 - Melanie Rose - Continued) Hurr asked that Staff continue the policy on requiring a survey. She said a survey was an investment that goes with a property. She did not agree with Staff being sent out to the property and noted the necessity of a survey. Goetten agreed. Jabbour said the applicant haL. made an incorrect assumption assuming that mortgage approval means the property is ir; 100% compliance with setbacks. He asked that this be explained to the applicant. Callahan said he hesitated to deny the request without the presence of the applicant and suggested tabling the application with Moorse giving direction of the Council for a sense of the need for a survey. Moorse clarified that even if a deck does meet the setback requirements, a survey would still be required. Callahan said if a survey requirement was not followed, it would present problems with other applicants as well. He noted that this was not the final decision but did suggest the survey be completed. Moorse said he would relay that it is the policy of the City to require a survey if he is asked. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, to table agenda item #8 to the September meeting of the Council. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Goetten informed the Council of a request from Mary Butler to allow a property owner • to add landscaping to a triangular piece of property owned by the City through tax forfeiture near Casco Avenue and Casco Point Road. She was asked to work through Gerhardson and the Park Commission. No City investment would be required. The property was said to be less than 1/3 acre. All agreed it was an excellent idea. Hurr inquired about the status for receiving remuneration from the DNR for lost tax revenue from the Maxwell Bay Access. Callahan noted that the DNR said they would pay what is required by the legislature. Hurr said more than that amount could be paid. It was determined that the County is given a yearly amount and makes the decision on how that money is distributed. Jabbour noted that the law was written for rural properties so this may present a different situation. Jabbour was also concerned for the DNR paying twice for the use. Moorse will find out what amount could be paid and to whom; and how the City could obtain the major portion of this amount. Moorse was also asked to respond to a letter from the Putnam's, whose property is across from the access location. The Putnams said they were not notified of any access being constructed. Kelley asked if they had voiced any objection but no one had spoken with them regarding the access prior to receipt of the letter. Jabbour asked Moorse to contact the Putnams and ask them to call Council members if they wish more information. 5