Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 20,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment,Continued) <br /> Fritzler inquired whether the gross vehicle weight would be considered the licensed vehicle weight. <br /> Gaffron stated it would be. <br /> Fritzler inquired whether equipment that is not licensed is also addressed, such as graders and bobcats. <br /> Gundlach stated if the vehicle or equipment is not licensed for transportation over a public roadway,by <br /> state statute it is defined as special mobile equipment,which is the definition that the City follows. <br /> Gundlach indicated the equipment would also need to be stored indoors. <br /> Leslie inquired what the City's definition of nuisance is in a situation such as this. Leslie inquired <br /> whether there were legal standards that constitute what a nuisance is. <br /> Gaffron stated under public nuisance, as defined in the Municipal Code, it includes"maintaining or <br /> permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health,morals, <br /> comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public; or interfering with, <br /> obstructing, or rendering dangerous for passage any street,public right-of-way, or waters used by the <br /> public; or any other act or omission declared by law to be public nuisance." Gaffron stated to his <br /> recollection the code does not specifically define nuisance but only public nuisance. <br /> Leslie inquired whether it is redundant to have nuisance included within the CUP if there is already a <br /> provision for nuisance. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that if it were listed as a public nuisance,it would lessen the language because a <br /> greater number of people would need to be affected and complain about the situation. <br /> Gundlach stated in the City's code there is a provision regarding the maintenance of private property, <br /> junk, debris,refuge, litter. Gundlach stated that section also covers noxious weeds and other public <br /> health or safety hazards. Gundach noted that section calls any violation of this section a nuisance and a <br /> public and safety hazard,which also is not defined as a public nuisance. Gundlach stated the provision <br /> for storage of junk cars, furniture, inoperable motor vehicles, is also declared to be a nuisance by the <br /> environment chapter of the code. <br /> Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission would like to use the word nuisance in the proposed <br /> language,he would suggest that language be included to say that a violation of this is by definition <br /> considered a nuisance. Gaffron stated another option could be to add to that section of the property <br /> maintenance vehicle storage that does not meet this proposed language. <br /> Leslie pointed out that section currently exists as a regulation for all property owners, and that in his <br /> view another reference to nuisance does not expand any of the expectations that the City would have on <br /> property owners. Leslie stated eliminating Subpoint f does not mean that a nuisance is allowed. It <br /> would simply mean that the City is not adding another interpretation to the word nuisance. Leslie <br /> inquired whether in the shared driveway situation there would be a new agreement that would be <br /> required if the conditional use permit is allowed. <br /> PAGE 4 <br />