My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-31-1969 Council Minutes-Special Mtg discussion
Orono
>
City Council
>
1969
>
03-31-1969 Council Minutes-Special Mtg discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2015 3:24:46 PM
Creation date
4/16/2015 3:24:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
..���#�o Tape 4 <br /> , . Page 4 f <br /> �� <br /> Searles: Right <br /> Whitehead: If that, in fact� was the intent. <br /> Searles: If that, in fact, was the intention. <br /> Franzel= I really included the building. <br /> Searles: Building ashore and afloat, or in the waters. Because this is <br /> the whole point to gain a year, isn't it. <br /> Whiteheads It's made difficult by the fact that this package that was <br /> presented is a package. It's your reaction to the whole total. and the <br /> motion as I understand it, was you re�ect the proposal with the exception <br /> that you allowed him to keep the 64 slips that he had last year. <br /> Searlesa Right <br /> Stubbs : Aren't we in a stronger position to deny it � a package, than. . . <br /> Searlesa That�s what we did. The question is to defer it for one year, <br /> Whitehead: The whole pmint is to defer, not deny <br /> Franzels All right, that is the whole point of / , to defer and <br /> deny, isn't it? <br /> Everyone talking <br /> Searles: Well, this is the intent, now let'� put it ba.ck this way. Since <br /> I was the seconder, my intention is to defer for a year on this � and to <br /> approve the 64bof last year. I will reconsider it last year if they want <br /> to put it back in� or if we want to keep it on the table for a year. I 'l1 <br /> reconsider it in the light of what we know a year from now, and this is my <br /> intention. Now, how do we do this so that it's sta.ted properly. <br /> Whitehead: You've stated it. <br /> Searles: Now, my statement may not agree with the intention of the rest. . . <br /> Al1 right, I would say that that intention to defer for one year his <br /> expansion. . . <br /> Mayors you going to add this to the minutes� now? <br /> Searless I 'm �ust saying, this is as an amendment to our past motion, and <br /> I would so move to amend the mistated� or appa.rently mistated motion, that <br /> my intention was to defer his application f or one year to gain the knowledge <br /> that should be available one year from today that is not available today in <br /> this area, and to approve the 64 slips he had last year. Now, that is a <br /> motion to amend and to clarify. <br /> Stubbss T 'd second that, if you're looking for one. <br /> Searles: Right, I am looking, right. <br /> Nayora It's been moved and seconded--are there any questions? You <br /> heard the motion--all in favor (ayes ) contrary? (none ) <br /> Searlesc Wait� did everybody approve it? Did everybody vote approval on the <br /> amendment? I think I would like that roll call. Let's get that part of it <br /> straight on there. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.