Laserfiche WebLink
' � ' � MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 21,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> health of an occupant, and include such things as foul odors, noxious gasses, dust, loud noises, excessive <br /> light or high temperatures. In addition,the following factors should be considered: Extent and duration <br /> of the disturbance,the nature of harm, and the motivation of person creating the nuisance. <br /> Russin stated from their standpoint they did not want to ask for something that was unreasonable. Russin <br /> stated he is not sure whether Staff looked at the standards by the Illuminating Engineers Society of <br /> America, but that they have very clear standards. Those standards state that between the hours of 10 p.m. <br /> and 6 a.m., all single and two-family residential developments must conform to certain provisions, and <br /> those laws are sensitive to the property owners' right to use and enjoy their private property without <br /> having to close blinds or curtains on their windows to accommodate another individual's actions. <br /> Russin indicated the provisions basically state that it is unlawful for any person in a residential zone to <br /> maintain lighting upon the premises under their ownership or control so that the beams, rays or reflections <br /> spill out over or onto adjoining or neighboring residential properties as defined in the zoning ordinance of <br /> the city. If said lighting by its degree of intensity or operation interferes with the peaceful operation of <br /> the property of adjoining landowners or unreasonably disturbs the comfort and repose of the adjoining or <br /> neighboring landowners, it shall constitute a nuisance. <br /> Russin stated floodlights that come on before dusk and go off an hour before dawn should be considered a <br /> nuisance. Russin stated closing the blinds or closing the curtains is not the solution and that they have <br /> been experiencing this since October of 2005. Russin stated he appreciates the City addressing this issue <br /> and that he would encourage the City to include some specificity in the language so there is no wiggle <br /> room. Russin stated they would also request that a strong process be put in place in the event the <br /> ordinance is not followed. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:50 p.m. <br /> Landgraver asked what the City does after it identifies something as a nuisance. <br /> Barnhart stated in addition to the normal notification,the City could abate the nuisance if the property <br /> owner refuses to do so. Barnhart stated City Code provides better mechanisms and more pronounced <br /> mechanisms to address nuisances than the zoning ordinance. Barnhart stated the challenge in the past <br /> from an enforcement standpoint has been the vagueness of the ordinance and not being sure what glare <br /> means. <br /> Landgraver asked if the City would do the same thing with a living wall. <br /> Barnhart stated the City could cut the living wall down and that they do the same thing with tall grass and <br /> debris. Barnhart stated that is a drastic step but if it has been identified as a nuisance, the City can go in <br /> and fix the properly and bill it back to the property owner. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the neighbor is told a living wall meets the nuisance and it is cut down,what would <br /> happen if he uses the same hole to plant a different species. <br /> Barnhart stated from a proposal standpoint, he did not want to go full speed ahead and regulate all types <br /> of landscaping. Barnhart stated it is a fine line and that Orono values the trees and landscaping but he did <br /> not want to start regulating all types of landscaping. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the lake is special and it is bold of the City to do this ordinance. <br /> Page 44 of 46 <br />