Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner commented that since it is an amendment and all proposed structures being added or removed <br /> are within the existing required setbacks,he does not see any issues with the project. <br /> Ressler said he agreed with Kirchner. He asked if any members had comments for or against; none were <br /> made. <br /> Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000044 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, <br /> 3745 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit Amendment.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 4. LA19-000065 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISIONS-6:34 P.M.- <br /> 7:57 P.M. <br /> Staff presented a summary of packet information. <br /> Ressler thanked Barnhart and Bollis for their work and contributions. <br /> Ressler asked how the City currently is tracking consumer protection information,number 8. <br /> Barnhart said the City does not track it currently. He assumes how it would come into play is if somebody <br /> would petition the City that someone is violating the 82-15 clause. He noted the language is struck and <br /> there are comments from the City Attorney. He stated he does not see a lot of value in it; it puts the City <br /> in a situation where it doesn't need to be,which is between two private owners. He thinks there are other <br /> mechanisms to address concerns that impact the City. <br /> Gettman clarified the consumer protection clause is 82-50, line 527. <br /> Bollis said he completely concurs with the City Attorney's view after reading his comments. <br /> Gettman asked Barnhart to explain what the City is not doing/is not interested in doing/is not capable of <br /> doing with respect to the consumer protection. <br /> Barnhart stated he has been with the City for five years and the language has not been applied for any <br /> subdivision that has been done. He referenced section b and said he cannot imagine a situation where the <br /> City is going to revoke a Certificate of Occupancy(CO)that has lawfully been issued because of <br /> consumer protection legislation. <br /> Gettman asked what would happen if someone were fraudulently applying for the application. <br /> Barnhart said that would likely be a Court issue versus revoking the CO. <br /> Ressler noted that would be an unlawful acquisition of a CO. <br /> Barnhart stated that it probably would be and the City would bring judgment against them through the <br /> prosecuting attorney, not necessarily just because of the clause. <br /> Gettman said he is struggling because there are not good consumer protection laws even at the federal <br /> level that are enforced. He asked why Orono would not keep at the forefront a list of contractors and other <br /> individuals involved in potentially fraudulent activity for Orono's neighbors to see whether there has been <br /> Page 6 of 19 <br />