03-31-1969 Council Minutes-Special Mtg discussion

Home Browse Search

�- /O • VILL�iGE 0 ORONO - `�� r � J 'z � Tape 4 - Page 1 � L � � , Hork Application � � � . Special Meeting of the Village Council, March 31. 1969 Searles: It's been brought to my attention about the North Shore Marina, Mr. Hork's operation, and our motion there. I may have mistated it, and I want to clarify it now, while we 're still in session here. As you stated it, Dick, it was ��i� to hold in abeyance for a year, and therefore deny these incPes�es for a year� and as he asked me to restate it, I �ust said it was to deny it,but your intention was to hold in abeyance for a year, taR't this right? Franzel: That�s right. Stubbsa And that wasn't stated in the motion. Searles: Well, now this was the intention, and this was the way he put it in the first place, and this is the way I would like to have it under- stood, because this is the whole reasoning for the action, was to gain a year. (Pause in meeting while Council listens to portion of tape pertaining to above motion. ) Franzel: This is basica�lly what I had in mind to cover in here. I 've got a couple of sentences written here. Whitehead: Th�action was taken, and there was a lot of . . . . I Franzels �es, but the intent, I think was clearly put. But let me give what I have written down here. ror the above reasons , I mean after I 'd gone over these other items � and the fact that virtually all the experts agree� that Lake Minnetoni¢a is in serious trauble, and that these experts also agree that because of the complexity of this problem, more basic information is neceasary bef ore they can offer sound recommendations. In light of this overwhelming information, and thebprotection of public welfare , and this includes lake residences , as well as lake useas � I move that Orono defer all action on marina expa.nsion f or one year, so that a sound and logical decision may be based on factual information. Whitehead: That's what you proposed originally. That was a long time ago. I 'm talking about action specifically. . . . . Franzel: Well, okay� all right, now. If this is what I meant here, can't we correct it legally so that (I open it up here for the rest of the group here ) if I didn't say that completely here, if this is what logically should be said here in support of the discussiorr>we had here. Searless You did say this in support of it earlier, and it is linked in my mind--it wasn't linked in time. It was not �uxtaposed to the motion, that's the big problem. It's way back. Whiteheads We pulled out the formal language of the motion. The formal ` language of the motion was to limit the number of boat slips to last year's `�.� and no building permit. And that was the response to that package. It's \ not very quotable, but that's what the specific words were that I got off j that tape. � Searles: Would it be better f or us to rescind that motion and pass a new one that is better phrased? Whitehead: I don' t think there would be any reason to rescind, but I cer= tainly think you could clarify it with a statement. Sure could� you could