Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 13, 2009 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />PAGE 6 <br />(Appeal of Zoning Violation, Continued) <br /> <br />Mattick stated Staff also looked at the alternative to a Level II home occupation and it was Staff’s <br />determination that if the vehicles are stored indoors, that would be a workable solution. Mattick stated <br />the City Council should determine whether they feel this is a true dispatch center. <br /> <br />White noted the two people reside in the home and that to his recollection the intent of the ordinance at <br />the time it was originally discussed was to prohibit outside employees from coming to the residence and <br />being dispatched to another site. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the specific home occupations that were the impetus for the drafting of the ordinance <br />involved landscaping businesses, hair dressers, and a flower growing business. <br /> <br />McMillan noted one of the concerns raised at the time the ordinance was being initially discussed was the <br />number of cars that would be parked on the streets by people actually coming to the residence and the <br />noise that could potentially be created by the running of the trucks. <br /> <br />Murphy stated he does not know whether it is possible for the City to monitor the number of trips that are <br />made by the two trucks, but that given the low density of the neighborhood, he has a difficult time <br />envisioning this causing a problem. Murphy suggested the Council consider tabling the matter to see <br />whether some other solution could be arrived at or determine whether the language in the ordinance <br />should be revised. <br /> <br />Bremer noted this is an annual permit and that if the complaints continue, the City could look at other <br />options. <br /> <br />Murphy stated in his opinion the situation will also be improved once the vehicles are parked indoors. <br /> <br />McMillan commented in her opinion this is not a business that is prohibited but should probably be <br />classified as a Level II business. <br /> <br />Mattick stated due to the limited number of people involved in the business operation and the fact that <br />they both reside in the residence, this does not appear to be a big issue. Mattick suggested the Council <br />consider narrowing down the parameters of the business and limiting the number of trucks or trips to and <br />from the residence. If the population in the area increases, the City could look at the matter again. <br /> <br />Murphy asked whether there are any deliveries made to the home as part of the business. <br /> <br />Frazier indicated there are not. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the City Council feels this is a Level 2 business, the property owners should apply for a <br />permit, which would require a public hearing, and that the Council could set the parameters for the <br />business at that time. <br /> <br />Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to request Mr. Frazier apply for a Level 2 home occupancy <br />permit, with the understanding the two commercial vehicles will be parked indoors, and that the <br />City Council will consider further parameters being placed on the business following the public <br />hearing, and with the $100 fee being waived. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 07/27/09 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 07/13/09 <br />[Page 6 of 12]