05-16-2022 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. a recreational small utility trailer as he does not believe that is causing a problem as the cars do. He asked if they can address this to cars and not just hardcover? Barnhart noted Peterson raises a point: it seems the predominant issue is the parking of vehicles that are operated sparingly.As a lake community,Barnhart knows there is a culture of one storing a boat off to the side so it is not impactful of neighbors. He stated perhaps they can revise this with some more direction and bring it back specific to cars or specific to zoning districts. Ressler knows they have looked at this language before and have come to an impasse due to enforcement. If a boat moves three feet it has been moved and it is no longer there for a long enough period of time. He said there is intent and enforcement and he believes that is the difficulty they are experiencing. Regarding Peterson's comment about cars versus a trailer, one could make the opposite argument with kids home from college but are not keeping several trailers.He thinks this is a difficult one to get through and sees there are merits and there are not merits. Kirchner understands the intent but in looking at the photo examples brought forward tonight,based on the photos the vehicles are all parked on hardcover. He asked Barnhart if complaints prompted this and if they were complaints similar to those brought tonight,passing an ordinance like this will not correct it. That does not seem like the best route. Barnhart replied occasionally they City gets complaints about junk cars. One section of Code they would be in violation of is how they park that car for an extended period of time and falls under the definition of hardcover.He noted an example where one had an extension of hardcover without a permit which is one section of Code that the City cites. It is difficult to get a judge or prosecuting attorney to agree with or accept because it is somewhat written in the negative.What the City is trying to do is clarify that a bit. It will not apply in all cases as there are certain situations where other issues can be used such as inoperable cars,license,etcetera.In certain situations this is one of the options the City has in terms of enforcement. With all Code enforcements it is based on a complaint,the City will go out to see what sections of the Code they are in violation of, and then will write a letter letting the property owner know what the rule is. If they choose to fix it that is great,if not,the City will take the next step. Kirchner has some concern that it will not solve at least one of the complaints they heard this evening. In his previous career in law enforcement he has experience enforcing junk vehicle ordinances that are specific to inoperable or unlicensed,and for what it is worth he would stick with that rather than trying to include additional language or violations of hardcover.He would defer to the ordinance that speaks to inoperable,unlicensed,or unregistered vehicles. Libby noted they had two public comments showing why people are upset about having errant, abandoned,or unattended vehicles on private property that can be unattractive and distracting. He thinks the draft amendment includes three elements on how to deal with that.The most difficult part,as Kircher's point was well taken in terms of law enforcement, it can keep the City police department busy making sure there is current registration on any and every vehicle that is parked for any lengthy period of time. Still it is a good component of the draft that Libby thinks should be there;the three caveats or elements of the draft amendment stipulate the vehicle must be licensed,operable,and parked on a hard surface.He does not think the hard surface is a bad idea in any way and thinks the draft amendment in its intent and language is practical and would serve public good. Libby is in favor of what the planners brought forward. Page 5 of 8