Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 20,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it appears that people can do something that is more impactful without a permit but that <br /> in this scenario someone cannot do something on their own property. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has never regulated trees and that fences are considered a structure that needs to <br /> be maintained on both sides. Gaffron stated the neighbor is supposed to have the nice side of the fence <br /> facing their property. The issue comes down to changing the grade or altering the land as well as <br /> maintenance of the wall. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he takes issue with the zero height of the retaining wall and that it used to be for walls <br /> that are four feet or higher in height. Schoenzeit stated if you go around the City,you will see there are <br /> thousands of these and that with the change they are officially nonconforming. Schoenzeit stated the City <br /> should try to look at ordinances that make people more compliant rather than less. Schoenzeit stated in <br /> his view the language is too broad, especially at no height. <br /> Leskinen noted the wall at any height came after a long discussion at the Planning Commission's work <br /> session. <br /> Schoenzeit noted he disagreed with it then and that he would like to reopen that discussion. Schoenzeit <br /> stated the 3'/11"or 4-foot height is a magic height where other things kick in and is somewhat <br /> manageable. Schoenzeit stated to say at any height they are not allowed is too broad. Schoenzeit stated <br /> in his view anything under 3'/11"could be administratively approved. <br /> Leskinen asked if he is saying there are thousands of these that are closer than five feet to the property <br /> line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they are all over the place and that the average homeowner would put one of these in as <br /> part of their normal landscaping. Schoenzeit stated the City allows other things along the property line <br /> that are as easily consuming of that line as a retaining wall and that the City does not regulate those. <br /> Leskinen stated in her mind Commissioner Schoenzeit has made the case that there needs to be <br /> clarification, which this change attempts to do. <br /> Landgraver asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is okay with the 5-foot distance. <br /> Schoenzeit indicated he is not since the City already allows, without any regulation, many other things <br /> right on the property line. <br /> Gaffron asked what about the language suggests the existing retaining walls have to go away. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he is not saying they would not be grandfathered in but that it is not allowing people to <br /> use a portion of their property unless they want to pay a$700 application fee. <br /> Leskinen noted this applies if people want it closer than five feet. Leskinen stated the whole point of the <br /> change was to prevent it from having an impact to surrounding properties. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the retaining wall would be on that person's property and that a fence and trees are far <br /> more impactful. <br /> Page 17 of 21 <br />