Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 46 <br /> <br /> <br />Gettman said he would also like to see a literal exchange of land, but where the fence is there's no <br />opportunity for that. It's kind of a slippery slope. This was part of a master plan and a horrible experience, <br />but how are exceptions stopped with respect to the master plan. The gentleman that said he still supports <br />it and the other person on North Arm are people that hired lawyers to fight against any kind of <br />development and leave it as a golf course last time. He feels the Commission is scratching their heads <br />right now to come up with a reasonable alternative that keeps within the master plan. <br /> <br />Bollis agreed it is difficult. He liked the idea of trading spaces rather than eliminating the 10-foot line. In <br />the 2018 aerial there is a fence with the old house which looks to be in the same position as the new <br />fence. It was there at one point and okay; now it's not. But it is clearly encroaching. <br /> <br />Erickson said he understands the difficulty of the situation and agreed with Mr. Thiesse in that this is part <br />of something much larger than one house, one neighbor, a fence, and an arbor. The Commission needs to <br />protect the concept of a conservation area with perpetual intentions. <br /> <br />Erickson stated CUPs need to be renewed after a year. The Commission frequently grants variances to <br />people, and five years later they sell their house and somebody else wants another variance on the same <br />property. This started with a mistake that should not have happened. Moving the line afterwards doesn't <br />right the mistake. Staff took a difficult position but it might be the right one, and he is tending to lean that <br />way. Both Staff and Commission are sensitive to the home loss, but Easements are intended to establish <br />areas for natural land preservation. If the life of the house is 50 years, it should go beyond that. <br /> <br />Libby said he would tend to defer to Staff's decision. This is a precedent that isn't new; it has been a <br />standard for a long time. He is both empathetic and sympathetic for the family. He does not blame the <br />homeowner. There must have been credentialed professionals who were surveying and building and <br />setting footprints that did not follow a fairly current establishment of the setback in a Conservation <br />Easement. He does not think it is wise when that precedent has been set long-term that a change is made. <br />He does not see any hardship or diminished use in quiet enjoyment of the property by having them move <br />the fence line and arbor outside of the encroachment. He is not in favor of granting a change. <br /> <br />McCutcheon said everyone wished it was a perfect process but it isn't. There are checks and balances to <br />make sure a wrong is righted, and he thinks this is one of those instances. He is in favor of supporting <br />Staff's recommendation of denial. <br /> <br />Ressler stated when entertaining a variance, the Commission has to look at practical difficulties and <br />several other items. When the CO was issued for the home in 2017, the survey did not include a fence. <br />Therefore, the Commission has no ability to validate the placement of that fence. He is not sure if it <br />would change the outcome of his opinion even if it did, because a clerical error does not seem to be a <br />practical difficulty either. He wonders if this is a casualty of an oversight by a fence company that put a <br />fence in the wrong place. That appears to be the biggest problem the Commission is facing; if that fence