Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JUNE 21. 2004 <br />6;00 o ’clock p.m. <br />(6. «M-3024B Clly of Orono, Chapter 7K-1577 (C) (2A), Zonlp|> CodcXmcmlnwiin. Public <br />Hearing -conlinued) <br />Leslie poinicd out there is noise, vibration and smoke associated with large commercial \ chicles <br />besides the visual screening issue. <br />Rahn reminded the Planning Commission of the pnor decision to allow 'grandfathering’ of parked <br />TOals in residential areas and then it was left to neighborhoods to do the ‘policing’ for compliance <br />Fritzler stated he did not support any provision for ’grandfathering ’ Rahn noted it takes a significant <br />amount of city stalT time to enforce, preferring something that is self-ptdicing if possible He also <br />concurred about the significance of noise as a factor on a two (2) acre propertv Fnt.-ler added that <br />o^hn but would be moved outside for starting, idling and <br />Chair .Mabusth inquired about the consensus of the Planning Commis.v m on this mailer at its recent <br />work session. Jurgens summan/cd the consensus was that the existing anie was satisfaciorv- as it <br />vvould eliminate non confommig uses, rccogni/ing that noise impacts arc a b:g concern even when <br />the large commercial vehicles are stored inside. <br />Chair .Mabusth expressed her view that tire Code sh.'mld not be amended <br />Mrs. rimm stated that the truck idles very slowly when leaving arriv me to the propertv. and that <br />there is a lot of other iralTic noise along Co. Rd 6. too. She added they had been given remission to <br />a^ntin^ue to park their vehicle on their propertv after the last ordinance change G.iffron explained the <br />City Council allowed an inflmnal six month grace period after the November. 2003 enactment which <br />vvas now- expired but no ordinance enforcement was going to be undertaken until the City Council <br />determined if it w as going to amend the Code. <br />Mrs. Timm reiterated that the dump truck was necessary for their livehhcHHl and not a boat and ihev <br />were confonning until the last amendment change ^ <br />Chau .Mabusth remarked that ‘grandfathering’ would be the onlv method to allow the fimm’s to <br />continue to park their large commercial vehicle on less than five acres unless there was rationale for <br />amending the ordinance <br />Jurgens moved, Fritzler seconded, lo recommend denial of the proposed /onlng Code <br />Section 78-15*77 (C ) (2.\) - 5 acre requirement for storage of vehiclei <br />>14,000 lbs. CVW. \ OTE: .Ayes 7, Nay 0. <br />Darrell and Karin Anderson, applicants, were present. <br />Curtis presented the application requesting front y ard and siuc yard setback vanances in order to <br />rebuild a home. She stated the applicants were infomied of the required 30’ side setbacks and <br />adv iscd to redesign their plans to meet those setbacks on both side lot lines os the proposal would be <br />rcv icvv ed as a rebu jld^he property owners felt that there is a hardship due to the relative naimwn^.. <br />Page 12 of 22 ~