Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. <br /> Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they <br /> are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. <br /> He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? <br /> Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. <br /> Curtis noted she cannot speculate.Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language.The language <br /> in the 2000 permit—although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions—did not include this. So, <br /> a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis <br /> could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. <br /> Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? <br /> Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the <br /> Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore <br /> as they have used the property over the years. <br /> Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and <br /> there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be <br /> heard,but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit <br /> their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, <br /> he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment <br /> in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. <br /> Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right <br /> there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more <br /> color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build <br /> a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction <br /> on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention <br /> is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned,they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring <br /> near the lot,swimming,and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr.Thull <br /> noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and <br /> really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way <br /> to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought <br /> multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and <br /> unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring <br /> properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they <br /> are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are <br /> seeking,basically,those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of <br /> multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior <br /> lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City—some are better than others— <br /> and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning <br /> office regarding location 1,also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- <br /> of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the <br /> site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side <br /> of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria <br /> Page 5 of 34 <br />