My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2020 3:59:09 PM
Creation date
1/22/2020 9:41:44 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
228
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 10 of 46 <br /> <br />Ressler asked if the Evensons spoke to the previous fence company that did the installation in the wrong <br />place. <br /> <br />Mr. Evenson stated they do not know who it is and all the records are gone, but he could probably track <br />them down by talking to the previous builder. <br /> <br />Ressler noted the survey is recorded with the City but the previous builder should have records as to <br />which contractor put the fence in. He noted if the Evensons were going to go to the City Council for <br />reconsideration, they should get as much information as possible and try to figure out what happened and <br />that it might change the outcome. <br /> <br />Erickson said this is not a court and the Commissioners are not judges or lawyers but he had an idea he <br />would throw out for free: If this encroachment has an effect on the title of the property, there is a chance <br />title insurance might offer some compensation for the cost of moving it. <br /> <br />Curtis clarified that it is a vacation, not a variance, that's being discussed. <br /> <br />Ressler asked the difference between vacation and variance, stating he understands the Commission is <br />granting the use of a structure in what normally would be a setback. <br /> <br />Curtis said it would be vacating the area that is restricted to construction. Right now, there's a prohibition <br />on building up to the lower red line that she indicated on a map, based on the Easement and the setback. <br />The Evensons are asking to vacate 10 feet past the fence to the north so that they conform to both. <br /> <br />Ressler asked whether there was any clarifying reason as to what the difference would be. <br /> <br />Curtis responded it's a restriction on the use of that land. They own it just like they own land to the <br />property boundaries. It's like a setback but it isn't a setback. It's an Easement granted to the City for <br />conservation purposes and perpetuity. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated there's a number of standards that have to be applied for a variance. There isn't that <br />situation in a vacation. There's no provision in the Conservation Easement for a variance, so you have to <br />get rid of the Easement for them to keep the fence there. <br /> <br />Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to deny Application LA19-000085, Chris & Amy Evenson, 780 <br />Lakeview Parkway, Conservation Easement Amendment/Vacation based on the Staff <br />recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br /> <br />Ressler told the applicant it still allows them to go to the City Council for reconsideration. <br /> <br />4. LA19-000086 J. MARIE FIEGER, 580 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON RIGHT-OF- <br />WAY, 7:31 P.M. - 8:28 P.M.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.