Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Bollis commented on the RS district for the lake yard storage. Not to bring up Big Island, but he knows <br /> residents out there that have no other place to store their boat if they are storing on land. It effectively has <br /> to be in the lake yard. <br /> Barnhart noted to keep in mind this is for residential(R)districts. <br /> Bollis clarified this does not have anything to do with the RS? <br /> Barnhart will have to look at it closer,but immediately, no. <br /> Bollis said they are not talking cabin cruisers but some people keep their fishing boats on the shore slides <br /> in the winter. <br /> Barnhart said that is a good point and worth exploring. <br /> Ressler said it looks like they are proposing to strike the two-year mark as well. Perhaps there is a period <br /> of time recognized that says this boat has not moved for 3-4 years and at some point,the City has to have <br /> some grounds to require that action be taken. That is not going to be difficult to prove. <br /> Barnhart stated it is, actually. He has to document for 365x2 that it did not move. That is the challenge <br /> and it is in the code now two years and the intent was to capture people from improving their boat over an <br /> extended period of time,but he has to prove it has been inoperable for that two-year period. If one day it <br /> worked or floated,it is operable even though there is no engine in it. He said to capture what the main goal <br /> is, which is impact to the neighbors, the visual impact, use of property impact, and capture and try to <br /> regulate that versus throwing a bunch of rules at people that address some discomfort. That is what he is <br /> trying to balance. <br /> Ressler asked a different way. He thinks the boats they are referring to that don't move probably wouldn't <br /> be removed and floated—at least the ones he is thinking about have not moved for several years and would <br /> not even be mobile. But this would at least give some teeth to their language. Whether the City can enforce <br /> it or not would be up for debate but at least it gives an argument. He sees Curtis shaking her head. He <br /> understands how it could be difficult but if they do not have anything in there it just makes it less difficult <br /> to enforce. <br /> Barnhart said Kirchner made a point about the junk car regulation and if they somehow expand it into the <br /> junk boat, and he thinks there are some avenues there. He thinks that is what he would rather pursue than <br /> trying to identify what moving is or those type of regulations. He noted there is a legitimate and pretty <br /> well-established junk car regulation and he thinks they can find a way to expand that into a boat or <br /> watercraft scenario. <br /> Kirchner said from an enforcement standpoint he assumes it would be considered a misdemeanor violation, <br /> as most city ordinances are. That puts them into the criminal courts where they need beyond a reasonable <br /> doubt; for the City to say it does not look like it moved because the weeds are 8.5 feet tall growing through <br /> the bottom of the boat, based on personal experience it will not hold up in court and they will not get a <br /> judge to grant based on that evidence. He noted all it takes it someone to come in and say they did move it <br /> on this day, at this time, 1:00am in the morning they pushed it 3.5 inches forward. He respects the <br /> thoughtfulness that goes into this and how they make it actually enforceable and accomplish the goals. <br /> Page 24 of 34 <br />