LA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex E Draft PC Min

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the island, and it just seems a bit much when there are still so many other empty lots. For 35 years there has been the same amount of empty, vacant lots. Perhaps a lottery when somebody turns it in to amend the language. Bollis clarified Ms. Farnes’ short answer is no, she does not like it. Ressler is not entirely in disagreement and thinks what the Commission has ahead of them is addressing how the City would like to grant access to all of these inland lots. It is not going to stop here and he thinks there are other considerations here. If they take out the water and were looking at this as if it were a road accessed lot, it would also be difficult to figure out how to provide access because there is no road there. Ressler thinks it is prudent for the City to decide how they want to handle all of these inland lots. One of the public comments was about a fire – the more structure they have out there besides the fact that it would take away trees which the City is generally opposed to – they are also creating a fire hazard with the more habitation and structure there is, the less ability there is to extinguish that structure and the greater risk of losing that structure as well as the rest of the island. These are his concerns as they talk about developing these inland lots which are generally not even accessible and that is probably one of the reasons why the price tag is what it is. He said of course the property owned by Three Rivers would be a great alternative to provide some dockage for inland docks and he understands that Three Rivers is not in support of providing an easement for that. He does not know if that resonates something on its own. Ressler said before they make it easier to access these inland lots, they need to address the additional use and access of the inland lots. He does not know that they will be able to decipher that tonight. Once they get through that, then they have to talk about lot sizes and what the building envelope is. Being able to provide private sewer and septic or well becomes a concern, they have minimum setback requirements, reasonable access requirements, and there is a lot to unpack. He personally feels this is an issue they need to figure out but he is not sure they can figure it all out today. He noted they rarely do this but he would almost rather table this so they can have a City work session. Curtis noted that is an option. There has been a lot of feedback and public comment tonight and she still believes the City Council is the decision maker and should be holding that conversation between themselves and the issue. She said if the Commission is going to table it, she thinks they need to have a good reason to table it, and a direction to go. Otherwise, Curtis thinks they can provide their feedback and comments and move it forward to the Council for their analysis. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is. Gettman moved so as to move it along and have the City Council then send it back to the Commission or have a workshop. Barnhart thinks it would be appropriate that the Commission recommend that the Council direct Staff to examine a more comprehensive solution that could be reviewed. Gettman amended his motion. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is, including Barnhart’s additional comments and the feedback that has been provided.