Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 10, 2009 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />PAGE 9 <br />Kellogg noted that Item No. 4 contained in the June 17th letter to Ms. Feyo touches on some of the issues, <br />and that one of the major issues was that his office was required to send numerous letters requesting <br />information. Kellogg noted the rain garden issue took over a month to resolve. <br /> <br />Feyo stated they were not aware that the landscaper was not doing what was required and that it was her <br />understanding he addressed the rain garden immediately. <br /> <br />White stated he understands this matter has gone on for a considerable amount of time and that he would <br />be in favor of cutting the fee in half. <br /> <br />Murphy stated he is in agreement with Mayor White and that there was a period of time that the City was <br />transitioning to this new fee arrangement, which possibly contributed to some of the issues experienced <br />by the Feyos. <br /> <br />Feyo stated the variance cost also increased dramatically and that she received a letter stating it is now <br />$1200 and was originally $75. <br /> <br />Bremer stated to her understanding the cost was actually $250. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a letter dated July 6, 2006, indicated the actual cost would be $600. Gaffron stated the $75 <br />was the result of a very outdated application form being used by Ms. Feyo. <br /> <br />Murphy noted the City has spent a considerable amount of time attempting to figure this out and that they <br />are willing to reduce the fee in half, but that the Feyos also need to assume some responsibility for the <br />issues encountered. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in a letter addressed to Ms. Feyo dated January 26, 2006, she was notified that the City <br />received her request for a variance renewal last approved in 1995. The last variance approval expired in <br />1996. Ms. Feyo was informed at that time that the forms and fees have changed since that time and new <br />forms were enclosed with the letter. Ms. Feyo was told this would be considered a new application, not a <br />renewal, and that the application fee would be $600. It was recommended that Ms. Feyo schedule a pre- <br />application meeting with Staff and that it is likely that house plans, elevations, grading and drainage plans <br />would need to be submitted. In addition, Ms. Feyo’s letter to the City did not include the $75 check that <br />she had referenced in her letter to the City. Gaffron stated Ms. Feyo had sent an application form that was <br />ten years old that would have had a $75 renewal fee back in the 1990s, which was the initial contact <br />regarding the variance fee. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it was Staff’s opinion that the application was old enough that it did not qualify for a <br />renewal fee, which was $350 at that time. Gaffron stated he is unsure where the $1200 figure comes <br />from. Gaffron stated today each applicant gets a $500 credit on engineering fees. <br /> <br />Murphy asked if the variance was renewed a year ago, what the fee would be. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the fee would be $600, and that if it had not expired, it would either be $250 or $300 <br />would be the renewal fee. <br /> <br />Murphy recommended the City charge the $300 fee. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/24/09 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 08/10/09 [Page 9 of 12]