Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart said before they go too far,they could have the public hearing. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. <br /> Ressler hears Barnhart loud and clear. They are not trying to make it difficult to prove but also provide <br /> some protection for neighbors in the community. He thinks the feedback provided is reasonable and he is <br /> not sure they will solve it tonight. Whether or not there is a provision of time that says it has to be taken <br /> off the site, not just moved 3-4 feet or pulled in and pulled out. He is looking for something that could <br /> trigger to at least provide some reasonable doubt—that is all he is after with the time provision. Bollis' <br /> feedback is reasonable and he thinks it was heard and there is support for the lake ward setback and <br /> depending on what kind of watercraft referred to, for example a canoe,kayak,jet-ski no a rolling slide that <br /> brings it on to shore. Setback from principal structure from Libby is worth noting and taking into <br /> consideration. <br /> Erickson commented regarding vehicle storage in number 3b, item 2 in the amendment it says the vehicle <br /> must be set back 50 feet from the property line. He thinks that is generally okay but there might be an <br /> exception if there is a vacant lot adjacent to the vehicle, perhaps it might be more desirable for the owner <br /> and the neighbors to have it close to the side of the vacant lot. If the lot is vacant and there is no neighbor <br /> that will be bothered by it,it might be less objectionable to the neighborhood if it is off to that side. Perhaps <br /> if there is some way to allow for that. <br /> Barnhart can certainly look into that. He said the Commission is well within their rights to table action on <br /> this. He can come back with a revision and they can act on it in April. <br /> Ressler thinks the feedback provided is pretty good and inevitably it needs to go to the City Council to <br /> decide. He thinks the Commission is all in agreement as to what they want it to say but they do not want <br /> to make it complicated and put themselves in vulnerabilities. Based on that,unless anyone feels otherwise, <br /> Ressler thinks it prudent to keep it moving and for Barnhart to clean up and present to Council. <br /> Bollis has a question on the principal resident required(item 4b) -he is looking for clarification as it says <br /> it has to be a principal residence and no boat shall be stored on property or group of contiguously common- <br /> owned properties. He noted there are a lot of 50-foot-wide lots that are combined of three different lots and <br /> there is a house on 2 of the 3. He asked if they are saying there is no storage allowed on the other piece of <br /> the 50 foot. <br /> Barnhart thinks that is referring to a situation where it is almost a lot of record type of thing. He is not <br /> proposing any changes to that but the primary objective here is that people are not allowed to store on a <br /> vacant lot. <br /> Ressler asked if anyone wants to approve the item. <br /> Bollis would rather move to table than approve so the Commission can see the wording of the feedback. <br /> Barnhart clarified if the Commission recommends approval or denial it goes to Council. If they table it, <br /> they will see it again. <br /> Page 25 of 34 <br />