Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> • <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> theh i i rudent to redact some <br /> Libby can certainly see legal counsel's reticenceto doand w y t s p <br /> of these things and get them out of here. He tends to agree with Kirchner in regard to the dilapidated or <br /> less than sufficiently functional storage. It will still be difficult to enforce, but that and the safety aspects <br /> of setback—he cannot answer the enforcement question but considering that so many of these boat vehicles <br /> store a substantial amount of fuels on them perpetually and out of water, as fuel tanks usually do not get <br /> drained. He pays dearly to store his boat indoors and he has a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the boat all <br /> winter. If he did store it like some people would be able to do,if theyredact this and take it out,that setback <br /> P P <br /> they are removing is a safety issue that perhaps the Fire Department would chime in on. Libby suggested <br /> seeing if they can keep the setback from the principal residence as an element of regulatory compliance so <br /> they do not have boats that can have electrical problems start on fire in the winter with a large quantity of <br /> fuel destroy a home. <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 /> • <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br />