My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-17-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
04-17-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2018 10:52:12 AM
Creation date
2/6/2018 10:49:41 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
467
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
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse asked why that would not be included under the collection of unpaid service charges instead of <br /> requiring an escrow. Thiesse stated the unpaid amount could be applied to the taxes on the property. <br /> Barnhart stated that is certainly a valid option. Barnhart stated it is his understanding the City Council <br /> will be looking at escrows in the near future and that might be a solution. <br /> Thiesse stated the City is basically holding a lot of money that they may or may not use. Thiesse noted he <br /> does not know how much money is returned after the project is done,but that perhaps the City should <br /> trust the applicant to do the project correctly and then levy the fees against their taxes if something needs <br /> to be corrected by the City. <br /> Barnhart stated if that is the consensus of the Planning Commission,he can recommend that to the City <br /> Council as long as the City Attorney feels there are sufficient safeguards to allow the City to do that. <br /> Barnhart stated he still sees some value to requiring an escrow on certain projects but perhaps some <br /> additional language could be added to the final draft of the ordinance. <br /> Landgraver commented an escrow allows for a lot more skin in the game on the part of the developer or <br /> applicant. Landgraver indicated he is not ready to eliminate escrows at this point. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it also depends on the stage of the project,such as the occupancy stage versus the <br /> permitting stage. <br /> Thiesse asked why there is an as-built survey required and not a final certified site plan under Section <br /> 86-68. <br /> Barnhart indicated Staff kept the same nomenclature that is currently used. Barnhart noted Staff did <br /> remove a paragraph regarding the certificate of occupancy. If the property owner wants that certificate of <br /> occupancy before the as-built is completed,they will need to provide a security deposit. Barnhart stated <br /> the Development Review Committee will be looking at ways to address temporary certificates of <br /> occupancy but that the draft ordinance still requires an as-built survey but removes the leniency the City <br /> has to allow temporary certificates of occupancy. <br /> Thiesse commented there is the possibility that the City will not allow someone to move into their house <br /> in February if the land has not been grade and a survey cannot be done. <br /> Barnhart indicated Staff has not applied the language that way and that Staff will allow people to move in <br /> but that a deposit will be required. Barnhart stated that can always be changed later and that it basically <br /> encompasses Lines 28 through 30. <br /> Thiesse stated he would like to contemplate leaving some of that in since there are weather factors that <br /> may not allow someone to complete their as-built survey. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:11 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:11 p.m. <br /> Page 37 of 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.