05-18-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 18,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. lifelong resident of the area and being on the Planning Commission and City Council, it is very important to him that the area gets taken care of. With every project he has done to improve the property, it is always in the back of his mind as far as how he can bring it more compliant and still make the project work. He stated that several times in the write-up by City Staff,Barnhart claims that the slope is getting steeper at the property line,which is far from the truth. The intent is to bring the property line to the crest of the hill. The previous neighbors put a fence right at the crest of the hill because that is the most logical place for it to go. He was never able to maintain anything on his side of it without trespassing, so he always had invasive weeds and toxic,nauseous weeds coming through. He has been able to resolve that issue, but it does not resolve the issue of how to maintain a hill that goes just about straight down for the majority of the length of the property line. He stated it would be a lot easier to do so from his area up. He said if you look at the pictures,at the tree,it is 1 %2 feet and it telescopes out. The reason it does is because that's where the crest of the hill goes. He said he went to a meeting the previous November, and many of the applications were approved with variances similar to what he is asking for: five-yard setback issue, lot width issue. At that time,Barnhart said the revised configuration of the lot would not impact the character of the neighborhood, and that was the reason Barnhart used for approval back in November.He said that is exactly what would happen in this case: no one would be able to tell from the street, lake, air, or anywhere else anyone is looking, any difference between the property. He is falling into the guideline that Barnhart stated last year. As he looks through the different applications,there are rear yard setbacks; a second rear yard setback; average lakeshore; average lakeshore, structure and hardcover; lake and rear yard hardcover in excess of 20 feet; lot width,rear yard, and hardcover. Those were variances granted to other people.He is asking for a similar type of consideration. He said sometimes City Code cannot match everything, especially in an area where he is, where all the lots are obviously substandard because they were zoned well after they were platted. He is trying to readjust it to where it would have been if someone had come out when the lots were platted and said that this is where the lot line should go. He noted a house is being built two houses away from him and the owner ended up getting two different rear yard setbacks. He feels precedence on this issue has been that setback variances are okay,especially given the lot sizes and when they were zoned versus when they were platted. He indicated there has been a lot of strife between the properties over the years. He inadvertently installed a waterfall over the line after the fence was installed because he assumed the other owner went along the property line.Although that caused a lot of strife,the Courts allowed that waterfall to stay there through two different litigations. He thinks the Courts allowing it to stay there means something. He will have an encroachment into one property that the City is not trying to help him resolve. If the Courts have allowed it to stay there for 18 years, he guessed they would get to keep it there because it is over the statute of limitations for adverse possession. He stated it is all about solving problems.He is a little frustrated because he wishes Barnhart would have gotten on the bandwagon and understood that that is the goal of the application,but Barnhart kind of cherry-picked a couple of things and only gave the Commissioners part of the story. Libby asked Mr.Nygard to summarize what he would consider to be the highest net benefit from being granted the variance, since he owns both properties and basically shares both lot lines,such as a bottom- line benefit in resale later on. He said it cannot inconvenience either property since he owns both of them. He appreciates the nuts and bolts and mechanics of it, but as a former independent fee appraiser,he would like to hear the net benefit if the Planning Commission suggests granting of the variance to the City. Mr.Nygard said the net benefit is resolving the issues from now until eternity.He has lived at the home 25 years and this is the location where it really belongs, which is why he brought up"boundary by practical location."He is considering selling the property.He is putting solar power on it and has put a new driveway in and reduced the illegal hardcover. If he sells the property, it is going to sell for less,so Page 4 of 29