Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 16,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> be appropriate for the applicant to pay back a portion of the credit if the easement is vacated, as the legal <br /> basis leading to the vacation enacted in April of 2014 is not applicable to 4750. <br /> The Planning Commission should open the public hearing and consider comments from the public and the <br /> applicant. If the Planning Commission concludes that there is public value in retaining the conservation <br /> easement,then a recommendation for denial of the vacation request would be in order. If the Planning <br /> Commission finds that there is no public value in retaining the easement,then a recommendation for <br /> vacation approval would be in order. <br /> Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, stated he is the owner of the property and that he was here <br /> when the City Council approved the vacation of the easement for the other piece of property. Stephenson <br /> stated while it was mentioned previously that there was threatened litigation, which was the reason for the <br /> City to review the easement, from that point forward there was no mention that it was due to threatened <br /> litigation but a pretty convincing presentation was given that the easement did not have any public <br /> purpose. In addition,the resolution says it is in the best interests of the City to vacate the easement. <br /> Stephenson indicated he was at the meeting when the other portion of the easement was vacated and that <br /> he was in agreement with the vacation but that he questioned why the City would only vacate half the <br /> easement if it is in the best interests of the City. Stephenson stated he was told at that time that the City <br /> could not amend the easement since notification was not sent out for my property. <br /> Stephenson stated he would like to call the Planning Commission's attention to the resolution where it <br /> says that it is primarily grass, appears to be yard, and is surrounded by a private fence. There is no public <br /> use of the property by the grassland south area due to the nature and viability of the grassland south area, <br /> including its utility for the citizens of Orono. Staff finds that there is limited to no public interest in <br /> maintaining the grassland south portion of the conservation easement. The resolution goes on to say: <br /> whereas,the conservation easement identifies an area referred to as grassland south. The portion of the <br /> grassland south affecting the subject property is no longer needed for public purpose. The resolution <br /> further says: whereas, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation,the Council has <br /> determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the subject <br /> property. <br /> Stephenson stated he is in agreement with the resolution and that he has spoken with Staff about vacating <br /> his portion of the easement. Stephenson stated the easement probably should have never been put on the <br /> property in the first place. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked if the original purpose of the easement was for drainage or water filtration. <br /> Curtis indicated it offered a stormwater quality benefit as well as protection of the viewshed based on the <br /> Conservation Design Analysis. Based on that information,the proposed easement areas were outlined. <br /> Curtis stated the overhead shows the grassland easement but noted there are also some other drainage <br /> easements and a tree preservation easement on the north part of the property which are not to be vacated. <br /> Leskinen asked if the area cannot be disturbed if the easement remains in place. <br /> Page 15 of 18 <br />