Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 13, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />   Page 10 of 26   <br />(8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING STUDY – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated those are the key elements to the zoning code text amendment and that he would be <br />happy to answer any questions the Council may have. Gaffron indicated he does not expect the Council <br />to take action on this tonight but that he hopes to have it finalized and back before the City Council by the <br />end of May or early June. <br /> <br />Printup asked if any residents have been hindered by the moratorium. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated there have been several applications that have been impacted. <br /> <br />McMillan suggested the City Council first discuss the customary and incidental language. <br /> <br />Mattick stated it is easy to be definitive with your more intense uses, such as a conditional use permit, but <br />when you get to accessory structures, there are a large number of things that would qualify as an <br />accessory structure. It then becomes hard to say to a resident that if it is not on this list, it will not be <br />allowed. One solution to that is that a resident can come in and apply for a zoning ordinance amendment, <br />but that would require even the smallest or most insignificant components to require a zoning ordinance <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Staff has attempted to list as many things as possible, but the fact still remains that you will not be able to <br />include everything on the list, which leaves the City with one or two options. The first option is the City <br />can say this list is all-inclusive, and if you want something that is not included on the list, the resident can <br />come in and apply for a zoning ordinance amendment. The second option is to include the language <br />customary and incidental to the primary use. Mattick noted that language sometimes causes some <br />concern since there is some subjectivity to the ordinance. As long as there is a history of the structure and <br />the Council can find grounds to justify it, it will be allowed. Mattick indicated that language is very <br />common throughout communities. <br /> <br />McMillan commented that typically with accessory uses, the City does not become aware of something <br />until there is a complaint. <br />Gaffron stated a wood pile next to the neighbor’s fence would be an example. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she is wrestling with those types of situations because they happen in everyday life and <br />tend not to cause problems the vast majority of the time. <br /> <br />Mattick stated he is not sure how the City would regulate some of that. <br /> <br />Printup asked if the City is looking for more regulation with the list. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated the list clarifies what the City allows, and while Staff has added things to the list and it <br />could appear to be more regulation, it actually allows more things. <br /> <br />Printup asked if Orono is going down the path of creating lists and whether someday they could be tested <br />by having to define the list. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 05/28/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/13/2013 <br />[Page 10 of 26]