My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-2017 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
04-10-2017 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2017 10:55:25 AM
Creation date
4/25/2017 10:55:22 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri110,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 23. #17-3924 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE <br /> PERMIT—ORDINANCE NO. 192,Third Series (Continued) <br /> Bamhart stated the challenge with that clause is if you have a lawfully operating conditional use permit, <br /> that permit runs with the land. A clause in the ordinance that appears to potentially allow the neighbors to <br /> change that creates a false hope that the neighbors have the ability to do that. On the recommendation of <br /> the City Attorney, Staff has removed that language to be more consistent with state statute. <br /> Walsh stated an example of that was the church on Fox Street. A neighbor was having an issue with the <br /> amplified noise and the City had to tell the resident that he does not have that ability to petition the City. <br /> Walsh stated as a result,there is no good reason for that language to be in the ordinance,but the City <br /> Council can include in the conclusions section of the resolution what the conditions are for those <br /> conditional uses. Walsh stated the City Council would be able to review the conditional use permit if the <br /> person is violating any of those conditions. <br /> Mattick stated the findings and conclusions of the resolution are very important since the language of <br /> ordinances tend to change over time. <br /> Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, stated in his view,the City should always give neighbors hope that <br /> they can change something that they are uncomfortable with. Johnson stated in reviewing the language, it <br /> says that the conditional use permit should not be subject to periodic Council review for the purpose of <br /> change or revocation unless such a review is one of the conditions of the original permit unless the actual <br /> land use is determined to be a violation. <br /> Johnson noted the language goes on to say that basically the City cannot do anything unless the property <br /> owner gives the City that right or the City obtains a court order. Johnson stated to his understanding the <br /> Planning Commission touched on this and that the ordinance is taking away the City's authority. Johnson <br /> stated the City could have a marina that is allowed to have 20 rental boat slips but they could move up to <br /> 26. Johnson asked how the City goes about enforcing that change or if they receive a complaint. <br /> Walsh stated that is why it is so important to cover that in the conditions of the conditional use permit <br /> since state law already prohibits the language proposed to be deleted. The conditions give the City the <br /> authority to enforce different items. Walsh stated they are just getting rid of the language that says the <br /> resident can petition since that right does not currently exist and that it will be important in the future to <br /> codify the conditions required as part of the conditional use permit. <br /> Mattick stated the language that is being struck conveys false hope and is completely unenforceable. <br /> Johnson stated he understands that but that the residents should always have hope that they can effect <br /> change. <br /> Page 19 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.