04-19-2021 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 • 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said Kirchner made a point about the junk car regulation and if they somehow expand it into the junk boat, and he thinks there are some avenues there. He thinks that is what he would rather pursue than trying to identify what moving is or those type of regulations. He noted there is a legitimate and pretty well-established junk car regulation and he thinks they can find a way to expand that into a boat or watercraft scenario. Kirchner said from an enforcement standpoint he assumes it would be considered a misdemeanor violation, as most city ordinances are. That puts them into the criminal courts where they need beyond a reasonable doubt;for the City to say it does not look like it moved because the weeds are 8.5 feet tall growing through the bottom of the boat, based on personal experience it will not hold up in court and they will not get a judge to grant based on that evidence. He noted all it takes it someone to come in and say they did move it on this day, at this time, 1:00am in the morning they pushed it 3.5 inches forward. He respects the thoughtfulness that goes into this and how they make it actually enforceable and accomplish the goals. Barnhart said before they go too far,they could have the public hearing. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Ressler hears Barnhart loud and clear. They are not trying to make it difficult to prove but also provide some protection for neighbors in the community. He thinks the feedback provided is reasonable and he is • not sure they will solve it tonight. Whether or not there is a provision of time that says it has to be taken off the site, not just moved 3-4 feet or pulled in and pulled out. He is looking for something that could trigger to at least provide some reasonable doubt—that is all he is after with the time provision. Bollis' feedback is reasonable and he thinks it was heard and there is support for the lake ward setback and depending on what kind of watercraft referred to,for example a canoe,kayak,jet-ski no a rolling slide that brings it on to shore. Setback from principal structure from Libby is worth noting and taking into consideration. Erickson commented regarding vehicle storage in number 3b, item 2 in the amendment it says the vehicle must be set back 50 feet from the property line. He thinks that is generally okay but there might be an exception if there is a vacant lot adjacent to the vehicle, perhaps it might be more desirable for the owner and the neighbors to have it close to the side of the vacant lot. If the lot is vacant and there is no neighbor that will be bothered by it,it might be less objectionable to the neighborhood if it is off to that side. Perhaps if there is some way to allow for that. Barnhart can certainly look into that. He said the Commission is well within their rights to table action on this. He can come back with a revision and they can act on it in April. Ressler thinks the feedback provided is pretty good and inevitably it needs to go to the City Council to decide. He thinks the Commission is all in agreement as to what they want it to say but they do not want to make it complicated and put themselves in vulnerabilities. Based on that,unless anyone feels otherwise, Ressler thinks it prudent to keep it moving and for Barnhart to clean up and present to Council. Bollis has a question on the principal resident required(item 4b) -he is looking for clarification as it says it has to be a principal residence and no boat shall be stored on property or group of contiguously common- owned properties. He noted there are a lot of 50-foot-wide lots that are combined of three different lots and • Page 4 of 5