Laserfiche WebLink
STYROFOAM ORDINANCE - CONT. <br />Whittaker noted she is not opposed to working with the Committee <br />or Staff on this issue. She felt they were not given an opportunity <br />to help draft the ordinance. She noted that the implementation <br />schedule is too restrictive. <br />Peterson told of an encased styrofoam system he has witnessed being <br />used, wh i ch appears to work very we I I . He asked the cost d i fference <br />between the encased system and the non - encased system. <br />Whittaker noted they saved major dollars by using non - encased <br />styrofoam. <br />Gaffron reported that the LMCD recommends banning all non - encased <br />styrofoam on the Lake and suggests eliminating the partial change <br />over to one final deadline date. <br />Rowlette asked the life expectancy of the docks. <br />Dunn said they last approximately 10 years. He said that the algae <br />buildup on the styrofoam actually helps heal the breakup of the <br />styrofoam. <br />Gaffron asked the Commission to review the questions posed in his <br />• memo. <br />#1 Rowlette, Cohen and Peterson agreed that all future use of non - <br />encased styrofoam for dock flotation be banned. <br />#2 Rowlette, Cohen and Peterson agreed that existing users of such <br />products be required to eliminate non - encased styrofoam. <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 />dock sections up until the final deadline date. <br />Peterson didn't think that economic reasons were acceptable. <br />#4 All Members agreed that the ordinance should apply to both <br />commercial and residential properties. <br />#5 All Members agreed that fines should be imposed for non- <br />compliance. It was suggested that marina licenses be withheld for <br />non - compliance. <br />is 3 <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO <br />PLANNING <br />COMMISSION MEETING <br />• <br />HELD <br />JULY 20, <br />1992 <br />STYROFOAM ORDINANCE - CONT. <br />Whittaker noted she is not opposed to working with the Committee <br />or Staff on this issue. She felt they were not given an opportunity <br />to help draft the ordinance. She noted that the implementation <br />schedule is too restrictive. <br />Peterson told of an encased styrofoam system he has witnessed being <br />used, wh i ch appears to work very we I I . He asked the cost d i fference <br />between the encased system and the non - encased system. <br />Whittaker noted they saved major dollars by using non - encased <br />styrofoam. <br />Gaffron reported that the LMCD recommends banning all non - encased <br />styrofoam on the Lake and suggests eliminating the partial change <br />over to one final deadline date. <br />Rowlette asked the life expectancy of the docks. <br />Dunn said they last approximately 10 years. He said that the algae <br />buildup on the styrofoam actually helps heal the breakup of the <br />styrofoam. <br />Gaffron asked the Commission to review the questions posed in his <br />• memo. <br />#1 Rowlette, Cohen and Peterson agreed that all future use of non - <br />encased styrofoam for dock flotation be banned. <br />#2 Rowlette, Cohen and Peterson agreed that existing users of such <br />products be required to eliminate non - encased styrofoam. <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 />dock sections up until the final deadline date. <br />Peterson didn't think that economic reasons were acceptable. <br />#4 All Members agreed that the ordinance should apply to both <br />commercial and residential properties. <br />#5 All Members agreed that fines should be imposed for non- <br />compliance. It was suggested that marina licenses be withheld for <br />non - compliance. <br />is 3 <br />