07-12-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 12, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 46. FIRE PROTECTIONAND PREVENTION, Continued) To correct this conflict, Staff is proposing two amendment options: Option 1: Amend Code Section 46 -57 to require a 75 -foot setback for both underground and above- ground fuel storage tanks from lakes, wetlands, streams or drainage ways where currently a 30 -foot minimum exists; or Option 2: Amend Code Section 46 -57 to require a 75 -foot setback for both underground and above- ground fuel storage tanks from lakes, wetlands, streams or drainage ways where currently a 30 -foot minimum exists; and amend Section 46 -57 (1)(a) to include the shoreland overlay district (1000' from lakes and 300' from streams), and the B -6 district in the list of prohibited districts for aboveground tanks. The B -2 district will continue to be an allowed district for new tank installations. In light of the Council's environmental concern with fuel storage in vulnerable locations, Staff initially considered applying the prohibited districts to underground tanks as well. However, elimination of underground storage tanks from all shoreland properties instead of only requiring a more restrictive 75- foot setback may have unintended consequences; for instance, making existing fuel/heating oil storage tankS nonconforming. • Murphy stated he would prefer Option 2 since it would be more stringent. McMillan asked as it relates to either option whether the City would require property owners to remove existing underground and above - ground tanks. White stated it would not require the removal of existing tanks. Loftus stated the main difference between Options 1 and 2 are the number of properties that would be affected. If the properties are adjacent to a lake, stream or wetland, this would not affect them. Curtis stated both options make it a 75 -foot setback and that Option 2 would impact more properties. If the City's goal is to keep the tanks away from the lakes, both options would accomplish that, but if the City's goal is to keep them out of the 0 -75 foot setback, more properties would be impacted with Option 2. Murphy suggested Staff look at all the implications of Option 2 and that he would be fine with Option 1 at this point in time. Murphy asked whether there are any restrictions regarding length of hose. White stated there are some restrictions on the length of the hose. Franchot commented the issue should be considered. Franchot asked how this would affect existing tanks if they need to be replaced. • Gaffron stated an in kind replacement would be allowed but that the installation of a new tank where one currently does not exist would be affected. Staff believes there are a number of fuel tanks that may not be in use currently but are still located on the property. Page 11 of 16