Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> violations of federal, state,or local consumer protection law for the very same people that are going back <br /> to the well,thinking, "We got these people last time. Let's try it again."He stated that just because the <br /> City is not doing it today does not mean the City should get rid of the statute. He is looking for whether it <br /> is practically impossible to do or troublesome to do; he does not think it is. He said there are people who <br /> are violating noise ordinances and other things and there are consumer protection kinds of protections <br /> available. He would think the City would want to tell everyone and promote that and have it at the <br /> forefront so the City does not continue those people in business doing bad practices. <br /> Barnhart referenced the comments from the City Attorney and said it could be left in there,that it does not <br /> hurt anything. The goal is to clean up the ordinance that works for the City. They tend to remove things <br /> that are not being used or are not likely to be used. <br /> Gettman reiterated that just because the City is not using it today is not a reason to get rid of it,although <br /> he understands the cleaning up part of it. If there are laws at the various levels, he asked why wouldn't the <br /> City protect consumers from a potential contractor doing it again. <br /> Ressler said he did not think any rights were being removed because it seems like there is redundancy <br /> because an unlawful issuance of a CO is going to be able to be revoked if it was unlawfully acquired <br /> whether the language is in the document or not. He stated that it seems like that is what the City Attorney <br /> is saying as well. <br /> Gettman said it is not just the CO and asked whether it is also the building permit. <br /> Ressler stated the end result of a building permit is the CO. He said the Planning Commission's job is to <br /> give feedback to the Council and everyone is doing a good job. <br /> Barnhart commented he is hearing that Gettman would prefer to keep it.The minutes will reflect that and <br /> he can show it as kept in,not deleted. There will be the history of the City Attorney's comments and <br /> Gettman's comments, and it can proceed forward. <br /> Ressler noted the Planning Commission is giving feedback and not voting for or against. <br /> Barnhart said he would be asking for a motion to recommend approval or denial of the ordinance. <br /> Ressler asked for additional feedback from the rest of the Commissioners, starting with the consumer <br /> protection section. <br /> Bollis stated he is in favor of striking it as drafted. He thinks there needs to be a nexus between the City <br /> and the party that is committing that fraud. <br /> Kirchner agreed with Bollis' remarks. He said there are other instruments in place at the City as well as <br /> other municipality groups that consumers have to pursue consumer protection violations,and he does not <br /> believe it is in the City's best interests to keep the language and it is redundant. <br /> Libby noted there are many different overlays of governance and authority; for instance,the Consumer <br /> Financial Protection Bureau(CFPB). There is no harm in having the reference because it is conclusive <br /> that there are going to be other agencies that will supersede and have authority over the City governance <br /> on the consumer protection aspect.The attorney's point is well-taken in that if they are not guiding the <br /> Page 7 of 19 <br />