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 /> deems appropriate for permission of the use. It further says that any interim use may be terminated by a <br /> change in zoning regulations. <br /> Gaffron stated an interim use ordinance would need to be adopted either for specific properties or for <br /> certain classes of properties or certain districts. Gaffron suggested if an interim use is considered,that <br /> certain specific uses be identified that would be allowed for that group of properties. <br /> Bremer questioned whether the large vehicle storage situation in question fits this particular case. <br /> Leslie inquired what the City Attorney felt utilizing the conditional use permit process versus other <br /> methods. <br /> Gaffron stated it appears the City Attorney has not seen another method that is better than a conditional <br /> use permit. Gaffron stated in 1967 and 1975,the City adopted an ordinance that made certain properties <br /> nonconforming. Those existing users were allowed to apply within the first year for a nonconforming <br /> conditional use permit,but those are of record from 1965 and 1975 and still continue today. Gaffron <br /> stated the City Attorney may be looking at the situation as a nonconforming conditional use permit that <br /> allows the use to continue but would make it impossible for new situations to start. <br /> Jurgens inquired whether similar problems might occur as in the situation with the bowling alley where <br /> a larger truck is purchased and then the City could say that they are expanding their nonconforming use. <br /> Jurgens inquired whether this would be considered a nonconforming conditional use permit or just a <br /> conditional use permit. <br /> Gaffron stated one of his concerns is that a conditional use permit normally establishes a permanency <br /> that the City does not want. Gaffron stated the nonconforming conditional use permit would establish <br /> permanency for the use,not the user, which is not necessarily what the City would like to accomplish. <br /> Gaffron stated if the City would like these types of uses eventually eliminated,then certain rights should <br /> not be given to the property but rather the owner, and that adding the language that this approval is only <br /> given to the existing use would help to rectify that situation since the rights would go away once the use <br /> has gone away. <br /> Rahn stated Leslie's proposed change in the language makes it clear that this use is not transferable. <br /> Bremer inquires whether a sunset provision could be added saying that the conditional use expires at a <br /> certain point. Bremer noted the Planning Commission had allowed a third horse on a property that <br /> typically would only allow two but that the owners were told they could not replace the third horse. <br /> Gaffron stated that was more of a variance situation than a sunset provision and was accepted by the <br /> property owner. Gaffron noted the statutes have been changed over the past few years that have <br /> eliminated the City's amortization ability. <br /> PAGE 6 <br />