Laserfiche WebLink
*. V' V'.:-:r'. T 4 ■» <br />m <br />u <br />: <br />n' <br />■H. <br />n- <br />fi <br />&:'; <br />■ t •' ' <br />>' ,_1 <br />. ' /■ <br />• '■ • . . (' ''?•• <br />fe, <br />‘ *'t <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD JULY 20, 1992 <br />STYROFOAM ORDINANCE - CONT. <br />'’**r*wMch'appIars t^wo?k ve?y°weM .^^^asked 'Jhe 00"“^!?e?enc! <br />bl?2;.n the ancaVed system and the non-encased system. <br />Whittaker noted they saved major dollars by using non-encased <br />styrofoam. <br />. +Ka I Mm rficommends banning al I styrofoam <br />°?'ric?Cre"'oTt*he LaU a^d* sWjests eHminating the partia. dhange <br />out to one final deadline date. <br />Rowlette asked the life expecta-oy of the docks. <br />SuMdtp tn ^Ve 's"y‘ro?oar I ,'°he^*ps ”hear thi" PreVko^^f ' Tul <br />styrofoam. <br />Gatfron asked the Commission to review the questions poised in his <br />cn0fno • <br />.1 Rowlette Cohen and Peterson anreed that all future use of non- <br />eicased styrofoam for dock flotation be banned. <br />•3 Cohen stated he felt that there should be one final deadline, <br />five years from adoption. <br />Rowlette felt that some marina owners may try to use deteriorating <br />Soei se^lons UP until the final deadline date. <br />Peterson didn’t think that economic reasons were acceptable. <br />♦hat th» ordinance should apply to both «4 am Members agreed that the orainante <br />Lmmerelal and residential properties. <br />.4 that finas should be Imposed for non- <br />”nf*oVm.n^r*n wrsTugge‘sred /net marina licenses be withheld for <br />non-comp 11ance. <br />♦ Ha mailina to Infom the residents of the City of Cohen suggested a maiiing t <br />the new ordinance. <br />Habuath asked If the ordinance should apply to ail styrofoam <br />structures. <br />.m ' ' A * <br />A <br />1