Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler said that regardless of who sits in the Commissioner's chairs, it is to the Commissioners' <br /> discretion to decide,and they are here to represent their community. He noted perhaps that is a cultural <br /> change that goes along with the change, and hopefully that represents what Orono wants. Hopefully, it <br /> follows in suit, or otherwise amendments would have to be made again. <br /> Libby noted he wanted to give kudos to the City of Orono for adopting a sketch plan protocol and an <br /> avenue for developers to pursue rather than many communities who do not have a sketch plan protocol. <br /> People then have to expend tremendous amounts of dollars to come up with very highly detailed plats and <br /> surveys to bring those to the Planning Commission/City Council. He sits at the podium as a developer and <br /> builder in many communities and has to talk to the Planning Commission,and they have no avenue for a <br /> sketch plan to proceed through the planning process.He said Orono deserves a vote of great confidence to <br /> its citizens and developers for adopting that protocol and they do a nice job of it. <br /> Ressler commented that the City is going in the right direction as they continue to clean up some of the <br /> Text Amendments, etc. <br /> Bollis referenced 82-50, Line 528,and stated he is curious why that is being stricken, since it seems like it <br /> gives protection not only for the City but also the public. <br /> Barnhart said the City Attorney commented he had not seen that before and recommended it be removed. <br /> He said he does not believe it belongs in the subdivision code. <br /> Bollis stated he was next to a subdivision that was in violation of this, and the only way to keep them in <br /> good standing would be to hold back a building permit while they were still in play. He said he did not <br /> know if the exact section was used, but he feels like it offers some protection and does not know why it <br /> would be struck. <br /> Barnhart said that would be a question for the City Attorney; he did not recommend the language to be in <br /> the document. He said he could have his notes reflect that Bollis suggested 82-50 be reviewed closer. <br /> Bollis commented that would be great. <br /> Ressler asked, if there is a violation of that application, is it in the form of a legal opinion or a known fact <br /> that is in violation,as the permit would be halted from issuance if there was a violation. <br /> Bollis stated the concern is, once the property is developed and nothing has been built out yet, if the <br /> developer is in violation of something that needs to be corrected,there needs to be some sort of a vehicle <br /> so they can correct it; withholding building permits would be the only vehicle available. He said it looks <br /> like it is pertaining to some other laws,not just the local law,but in violation of the actual subdivision <br /> code that they applied for or the specific subdivision. He noted if that is the case, it may be a moot point <br /> and it shouldn't be in there. He wanted to make sure the City has control if they are in violation of <br /> something. <br /> Barnhart said that he thinks the City Attorney will say the solution is not through the subdivision code. He <br /> stated the City can't flat-out revoke a CO if they have granted one. If the City has granted a building <br /> permit under Item(b)for a lawfully-to-be-constructed building,the City can't revoke that just because <br /> they are in violation of potentially some other consumer protection legislation. He stated Bollis' comment <br /> is noted and he will ask for additional information. <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br />