03-15-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart thinks it is reasonable to suggest from the Commission that the Council consider changes or regulations related to fish houses and the like. Ressler said he cannot speak on behalf of the whole Commission but that is part of his recommendation. Kirchner would be supportive of that. He knows it is a stretch, but for instance someone had a watercraft fire and got it extinguished and it was towed out of the lake on to a trailer and parked in their front yard. Technically, if they went through the registration for a boat that is completely burned out on a trailer it would be acceptable the way this is worded right now. He believes the operable condition is something he would still like to see in there; it would be consistent with junk vehicle ordinances for many cities around and how that is enforced. He agrees there is a neighboring community to the south and every time he drives down a certain County Road Kirchner passes a sailboat on the side of the road in someone's yard that has been there for the last 6-7 years. He is hesitant to do away with the operational condition and is not necessarily supportive of just saying it needs to be registered because there are ways to skirt around that. Ressler thinks so too. He has an idea that may be a happy compromise. Operable versus inoperable for a boat versus a vehicle might be more difficult to prove; perhaps they could strike the language of operable versus inoperable but retain the language talking about a period of time and define that time by whether it is relocating it to a different location or lot altogether. Is there something they can use as a measurement that does not have to do with registration as that seems like an easy work around. Barnhart stated inoperable is nearly impossible to prove. To Ressler's point,the junk car is usually defined as missing key components such as tires,hood,and windshields. He thinks they may expand that to apply to boats with a hole in the hull, etcetera. Barnhart said he cannot prove that something is moved because he does not check every day. The goal is to try to keep it reasonable and simple. McCutcheon is thinking of those who are restoring a boat because it is technically not licensed yet or operable yet. He is sure that is probably a small subset and perhaps even zero but one would hate to take that away from a citizen whose lifelong dream was to retire and build a boat. Barnhart noted they cannot do it and store it outside. McCutcheon noted if one is building a 30-foot boat,not many people can accommodate that. Barnhart understands and that is part of the balance. While one has the right to develop their boat, the neighbors have a right to not have boat construction right next door for an indefinite period of time. Libby can certainly see legal counsel's reticence to do the enforcement and why it is prudent to redact some of these things and get them out of here. He tends to agree with Kirchner in regard to the dilapidated or less than sufficiently functional storage. It will still be difficult to enforce, but that and the safety aspects of setback—he cannot answer the enforcement question but considering that so many of these boat vehicles store a substantial amount of fuels on them perpetually and out of water, as fuel tanks usually do not get drained. He pays dearly to store his boat indoors and he has a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the boat all winter. If he did store it like some people would be able to do,if they redact this and take it out,that setback they are removing is a safety issue that perhaps the Fire Department would chime in on. Libby suggested seeing if they can keep the setback from the principal residence as an element of regulatory compliance so they do not have boats that can have electrical problems start on fire in the winter with a large quantity of fuel destroy a home. Page 23 of 34