06-23-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/City of OrofM) Planning Commission May 13,2003 Page 3 It is important to sort out urban legends from factual information. Wildlife know how to deal with fences, including electrified ones. Foxes and small animals crawl under fences and deer are well-known to jump them. (Generally, electrification is not placed upon on the lower wire.) In short, the various concerns expressed by the letter-writers are unfounded, and our proposed modifications pose no threat to wildlife or the environment and no interference to our neighbors* enjoyment of their properties. Moreover, our proposal seeks to do far less, in terms of impact on the environment and surrounding properties, than we are allowed to do under existing permitted uses. For example, we have an ongoing right of access to the knoll and to bring a variety of materials, including temporary structures and temporary fences, onto the hill without permission from the city. Technically, we also have the right to build a large accessory building within certain height restrictions on a location 75 feet from the wetland demarcation line. Similarly, technically we have the right to use very visible seven foot high temporary fencing anywhere at least 75 feet fiom the wet land demarcation line and along the top of the knoll. Although we could lawfully exercise all of these rights, causing a greater impact on CMir neighbors and the City, we have attempted to elect a use with minimal impact that reflects sound land management. As members of state and national environmental organizations, we care deeply about the environment and our design application is sensitive to such considerations. We are seeking to create a safe, environmentally responsible use that is less visible and permits better overall use of the grasses, and grass recovery. (That is, by increasing the space accessible for the horses to eat grass, we can do a better job maintaining the height of the grass to a self-sustaining level). We are proposing fencing that would l« electrified high-tensile strength wire that is unobtrusive. (We would note that fencing in this area is a common phenomenon and can lend itself to a traditional rural character.) By placing it lower on the hill it will be less visible than if it is concentrated on the crest of the hill. Absent our permitted agricultural/animal use, our alternative is to subdivide the property for housing development and to use the proceeds to purchase a hobby farm elsewhere. We have paid engineers to develop a plat that includes 5 houses. This is obviously not what we wish, nor do we believe it to be in the best interest of Orono or our neighbors. This development of houses would obviously significantly increase traffic, demands on public services, and probably add a private sewer system. While views and aesthetics arc obviously subjective, we, at least, far prefer the visage of open, undeveloped fields with a few horses, to the alternative views of yet another development with homes and driveways, and the continued inroad upon the rich horse country tradition which brought us to Orono. As noted by the City Planner, this is a unique property with its dry, approximately 2- acre highland surrounded by a marsh. There is no other such property in Orono. We are not proposing a new use, but rather asking for the right to restore the only access to the grassy knoll so that we may maintain and improve it. Otherwise, it is rendered inaccessible and worthless. We will readily agree to perform amelioration of the wetlands, as required by the Watershed District which will create greater than two times the amount of wetland removed. • 1 i