Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, June 15, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 6 of 12 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Bollis commented that would be great. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Kirchner asked if a simple Restraining Order could be applied for to prevent further development or <br />construction on the site to stop the process. He stated that may be another avenue to pursue if there is a <br />concern that taking the language out gives the City no leverage/opportunity to do something. Court- <br />ordered Restraining Orders happen sometimes in civil cases, and a judge could bar any further <br />construction/development until different criteria are met or a Court date is set. <br /> <br />Barnhart noted that could be done regardless of what the document says and that it has happened in Orono <br />and it was not that long ago. <br /> <br />Bollis asked if “cul-de-sac” could be defined. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated they could try and thought they did. He said he knows they had that definition in the <br />language. There isn’t a really good one, but he thought there was one in there. Most of the time when you <br />see a definition of “cul-de-sac,” you’ll see the “turnaround” that is a key component of a cul-de-sac. That <br />doesn’t quite get Staff where they want to go, because the Fire Code allows a hammerhead-style