Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING <br /> � Monday,April 15,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen noted a person is required to have a kennel license for three or more dogs even if those dogs are <br /> kept in the house,which has nothing to do with the structure. The structure would be addressed in the <br /> accessory use section and that perhaps the City should look at using dog license or other terminology to <br /> create some distinction for the general publia <br /> Gaffron indicated he is in agreement with that. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should propose some type of parameters for . <br /> kennels and/or dog houses. If a neighbor has a more elaborate structure,the City may want to look at <br /> them. . <br /> Schoenzeit stated the issue is when it crosses the line of a small dog house to something more elaborate. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City is attempting to regulate the structure or the activity,which may impact the <br /> whole neighborhood. Leskinen commented it may be helpful to have some regulation as to the activity <br /> and the level of disturbance to the neighbors. If there are three dogs in a structure five feet from the lot <br /> line, it could make a lot of noise. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if there is a fenced-in yard,there is nothing preventing the dog from standing at the <br /> fence line and barking. <br /> Leskinen stated the objective is to address the noise or interference with the neighbor's peace and <br /> � enjoyment of their property. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the City cannot control a loose dog within the property line but the City can regulate a <br /> structure that is located close to the lot line. <br /> Gaffron stated a person can currently get a license for three dogs and there is no standard for how they are <br /> housed. Gaffron stated it may be an item where the City just accepts the fact that kennels are subject to a <br /> different section of the code. The City could perhaps consider a future amendment to what is regulated <br /> currently. Gaffron noted kennel structures were never listed but everyone agrees that it is a structure. It <br /> could be small enough not to require a building permit but that it perhaps should meet some type of � <br /> setback,which means it should be listed as a structure. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the City should have some say in where the structure is located. <br /> Leskinen suggested there be a setback regulation for the kennel structure regardless of how many dogs <br /> . will live in it. : <br /> Gaffron stated currently it is the same as any other accessory structure. <br /> Landgraver stated a good starting point would be five and ten feet and that it should also include dog runs. ` <br /> Gaffron noted fencing has been added, subject to the existing provisions contained in the non- <br /> encroachments section. Gaffron indicated the City has fencing regulations that are fairly focused and that <br /> he is not sure whether there needs to be any additional language incorporated. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether arborvitae should be included under fencing. <br /> Page 17 of 26 <br />