Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 23, 2010 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 5 of 18 <br /> <br />(5. #10-3483 CITY OF ORONO – AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO <br />ALLOW INTERNMENT OF CREMATED REMAINS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO PLACES OF <br />WORSHIP, Continued) <br /> <br />which outlines what is and is not included with this service. That information is available for review by <br />the City. <br /> <br />White requested the information be sent to Staff. <br /> <br />McMillan stated one of her concerns is the initial burying of the remains but that the perpetuity of the <br />church is also important. McMillan stated it is important the relatives know there is some type of <br />permanency to this type of care and that urns offer more portability should the church relocate. <br /> <br />McMillan stated her other concern was the need for a setback and that a 50-foot setback in her view is <br />important since there will be some visitors to the site. <br /> <br />Franchot stated his primary concern is the permanency of the church and that there needs to be some <br />consideration given to that. Franchot asked as it relates to McMillan’s support of the 50-foot setback, <br />whether she feels that should apply to both columbaria and gardens. <br />McMillan stated in her view it should apply to any structure either in ground or above ground but not <br />apply to any landscaping. <br /> <br />Franchot noted that stance is different from Staff’s recommendation. Franchot stated there should be <br />some type of setback but that he does not see the need for a 50-foot setback. <br /> <br />Bremer commented she can understand Council Member McMillan’s concern for a 50-foot setback but <br />that in her view it would depend on the layout of the columbaria and the specific property. Bremer <br />indicated she does not have a definite setback in mind. Bremer commented the memorial garden in <br />Mound is very understated and beautiful with very few visitors. Bremer stated she does not see this as <br />being a high impact type use and that a 50-foot setback may not be necessary. <br /> <br />White stated in his view the City Council should proceed forward with the zoning text amendment and <br />that a 50-foot setback is probably not necessary. White recommended the language incorporated in the <br />contracts drafted by the churches be included in the zoning text amendment to address the concerns <br />regarding permanency. <br /> <br />White recommended the proposed language be sent back to the Planning Commission for their input as <br />well. <br /> <br />Mattick pointed out this could be a stand-alone use and asked whether the Council would like them <br />physically connected to the church. Mattick also pointed out that there is no mechanism to make the <br />columbaria structure be removed should the church relocate. In terms of the gardens where the ashes are <br />sprinkled on the ground, there would be nothing to remove. <br /> <br />Franchot stated the main issue is if the church relocates and asked whether there will be a way under a <br />conditional use permit to address the relocation of a church and the columbaria. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 5 of 18]