Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6. #04-3024B City of Orono, Chapter 78-1577 (C ) (2A), Zoning Code Amendments, Public <br /> Hearing-continued) <br /> Leslie pointed out there is noise, vibration and smoke associated with large commercial vehicles <br /> besides the visual screening issue. <br /> Rahn reminded the Planning Commission of the prior decision to allow `grandfathering' of parked <br /> boats in residential areas and then it was left to neighborhoods to do the `policing' for compliance. <br /> Fritzler stated he did not support any provision for `grandfathering.' Rahn noted it takes a significant <br /> amount of city staff time to enforce, preferring something that is self-policing if possible. He also <br /> concurred about the significance of noise as a factor on a two (2) acre property. Fritzler added that <br /> vehicles are only stored in the buildings but would be moved outside for starting, idling and <br /> operating. <br /> Chair Mabusth inquired about the consensus of the Planning Commission on this matter at its recent <br /> work session. Jurgens summarized the consensus was that the existing code was satisfactory as it <br /> would eliminate non-conforming uses, recognizing that noise impacts are a big concern even when <br /> the large commercial vehicles are stored inside. <br /> Chair Mabusth expressed her view that the Code should not be amended. <br /> Mrs. Timm stated that the truck idles very slowly when leaving/arriving to the property, and that <br /> there is a lot of other traffic noise along Co. Rd 6, too. She added they had been given permission to <br /> continue to park their vehicle on their property after the last ordinance change. Gaffron explained the <br /> City Council allowed an informal six month grace period after the November, 2003 enactment which <br /> was now expired but no ordinance enforcement was going to be undertaken until the City Council <br /> determined if it was going to amend the Code. <br /> Mrs. Timm reiterated that the dump truck was necessary for their livelihood and not a boat and they <br /> were conforming until the last amendment change <br /> Chair Mabusth remarked that `grandfathering' would be the only method to allow the Timm's to <br /> continue to park their large commercial vehicle on less than five acres unless there was rationale for <br /> amending the ordinance. <br /> Jurgens moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning Code <br /> Amendment to Section 78-1577 (C ) (2A)—5 acre requirement for storage of vehicles <br /> >14,000 lbs. GVW. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay 0. <br /> 7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road, Variance, Public <br /> Hearing (8:30-9:01 p.m.) <br /> Darrell and Karin Anderson, applicants, were present. <br /> Curtis presented the application requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to <br /> rebuild a home. She stated the applicants were informed of the required 30' side setbacks and <br /> advised to redesign their plans to meet those setbacks on both side lot lines as the proposal would be <br /> reviewed as a rebuild. The property owners felt that there is a hardship due to the relative narrowness <br /> Page 12 of 22 <br />