Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 21,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Mattick stated one situation is the rental of the property by the owner, and asked if the language should <br /> read homeowner/occupant to cover that type of situation. If the City does elect to adopt this language and <br /> it is challenged,the City will need to prove that the person using the dock is indeed a relative,which can <br /> be difficult from a regulatory standpoint.The Planning Commission should also consider whether the <br /> City has sufficient resources to conduct the necessary investigations. Mattick indicated should Staff feel <br /> that someone is in violation of the text amendment,they would prepare a report asking the City Attorney <br /> to bring criminal charges,which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt,and which can be difficult to <br /> prove in this type of situation. <br /> Mattick noted in the past some of the primary concerns that have been raised as it relates to docks are <br /> increased tra�c,parking,and people who are not living at the residence being in the area at different � <br /> times of the day. Mattick stated in his opinion item number two would be easier to enforce. The <br /> Planning Commission will need to decide whether the language in item two should also include renters of <br /> the property. <br /> Mattick stated he is unsure whether there were other items the Planning Commission was considering,but <br /> that he would propose coming back to the Planning Commission with more refined language following <br /> tonight's discussion and then bring it before the City Council for their input. Mattick stated the easiest <br /> way to enforce dock rentals is to limit the number of boats allowed on a dock. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there is any way to separate the ordinance from the City's enforcement policy and <br /> compliance issues. Schoenzeit stated it was clear from the City Council that there are law-abiding <br /> residents that allow relatives and others to use their dock and that the City should not try to make good <br /> people code violators. <br /> Mattick stated if this is adopted,the City should be prepared to enforce it. At the present time Staff <br /> enforces its current language based on complaints and that for the most part Staff does not have the time <br /> to police this type of violation on a regular basis. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he is talking about not putting this language into the City Code but perhaps adopting an <br /> enforcement policy. <br /> Mattick commented he is unsure how the City could accomplish that and that it needs to be spelled out in <br /> the language. If you want to enforce it criminally,the language needs to be black or white. Mattick <br /> stated as it relates to item one,the definition of a relative does not seem like it would be difficult to <br /> define,but it can become complex given different situations. <br /> Levang asked if renting or otherwise providing space could involve bartering. Levang asked what would <br /> constitute renting and whether it has to be an exchange of money. <br /> Mattick stated the language, "or providing space" does not require the City to demonstrate there is a rental <br /> agreement in place. <br /> Landgraver asked what the City Attorney would recommend be deleted based on previous discussions. <br /> Page 2 <br />