Laserfiche WebLink
MINL’TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION <br />WEDNESDAY, l-TBRl ARY 2, 1994 <br />Gatfron read trom a handout regarding additional performance standards which have been in <br />place since the mid-1970s. The first one pertains to suitable sanitarv facilities which all i>ur <br />marinas now have available. Ni>t all the marinas have a boat head pumfx>ut station in the marina <br />but if they all did maybe that would be overkill. No one has complained that the facility is not <br />available. Item B states all means of access to the operation from any street shall be so liKated <br />to avoid the routine of vehicles from the property over streets that serve abutting residential <br />areas. All access roads shall be paved 30'. Item C reads all lighting on the premises shall be <br />shielded. Item D limits the hours of running engines for purpti.se of running auxiliary equipment <br />or testing from 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. It doesn't mean that you can't have bt)ats going out into <br />the evening but the ceneral noisiness of testing engines should be limited. Gaffron mentioned <br />the existing noise ordinar.-e on land which states noise shall not extend past your property <br />boundaries. <br />Item E talks about maximum hours of operation from 7.00 a m. to 10:00 p.m. for retail sales <br />and service except that is necessary to suppv>rt normal fishing activity or other uses granted by <br />the Council. Normal fishing activity probably doesn't include a fishing tournament. Gaffron <br />said fishing tournament permits don't necessarily stop the problems but do warn all other <br />agencies of the event. <br />Item F states at all times docks, seawalls and premises be kept in a neat and orderly manner. <br />This can be dealt with by working with the owner. Dunn stated that Item E covers a reasonable <br />operational time but the reference to auxiliary equipment in Item D could present a problem and <br />perhaps needs to be defined. Rowlette suggested rewording Item E to be more specific. <br />Gaffron proceeded with Item G. persons in charge sf. II prohibit the dumping of garbage, etc. <br />Rowlette suggested rewording Item G to encourage recycling. Camilo Castellon inquired it there <br />are anv provisions to enclose increasingly large garbage cans from the view of neighbors. <br />Gaff ron felt that the code does not do a good job of requiring screening for dumpsters. Peterson <br />said the intent is to make receptacles available and convenient for people to use. Gaffron stated <br />there seem to be two concerns - the small can that is handy and the dumpster that those small <br />cans are dumped into. He sugge.sted screening the dumpsters but the cans could be visible. <br />Item 8 references no commercial diKks or boat buoys shall extend further into waters than is <br />reasonablv necessarv to accommodate docking and imniring of such craft. The length of diKks <br />shall be regulated by the City Code. Gaffron stated presently they are not regulated by code <br />except by reference to old LMCD codes. The code also states that all such commercial docks <br />and wharves shall be constructed and maintained of such materials and of such type of <br />amstruction as will not render them unsafe or likely to endanger public enjoyment of the waters. <br />I here is nothing In our code that def ines what is a safe dock. 1 he LMCD does not have design <br />or structunil standards. Perhaps there are safety standards we could get into. The addition to <br />5