Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Stickney stated Example 3 is in his covenants. In that example, the yard space is 0.57 of an acre and that <br /> someone will not come in and ask to clear out an acre or else they will spend $50,000 on trees if they do <br /> that. Stickney stated that is why there is a strict tree preservation plan, which will protect against that. <br /> Lemke asked if the covenant would be a legal document. <br /> Stickney stated it is and that it would be filed with the property. Stickney stated every homeowner will <br /> see it before they purchase the property and it will be filed at the time of final plat. <br /> Gaffron asked who will be enforcing the covenant. <br /> Stickney indicated he would be along with the homeowners association. <br /> Gaffron asked if the homeowners association can change those covenants in the future. <br /> Stickney stated that is a good thought and that could be added. Stickney stated they would be hurting <br /> themselves if they did that. <br /> Schoenzeit commented covenants typically fail the second time around. <br /> Gaffron asked if Mr. Stickney would be willing to put additional restrictions around the perimeters of <br /> specific lots. Gaffron noted the development of the Lakeview Golf Course does not allow development <br /> of any sort to happen within certain conservation areas. Gaffron stated the concern here is that there is a <br /> potential for an individual homeowner to do something different than what is in the covenants, and that if <br /> the covenants can be changed at will without input from the City, one of the ways to avoid that issue is to <br /> place a provision in the covenant to prevent that which would give the City some enforcement power. <br /> Stickney noted his covenants on Lot 5 prevent building in the existing tree area. Stickney stated he could <br /> bring to the Council the general building zones for Lots l, 2, 6, and 7. <br /> Gaffron noted he did something similar to that on Graham Hill, and that he is suggesting it might be <br /> appropriate in this case. <br /> Stickney stated he is protecting the trees, which was the intent of the covenant, and that he would need <br /> some flexibility in the house pads if that provision is included. Stickney noted he has reduced the <br /> building areas since he first proposed the sketch plan. <br /> Landgraver stated if the covenants can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners at a future date, <br /> making it specific to each lot would carry a lot of weight. <br /> Stickney stated in the Big Woods area that would make sense. <br /> Landgraver noted the trees will be relevant to some of the properties and the other properly owners may <br /> choose to change that. Landgraver stated nobody wants the trees cut down, so incorporating it in at the <br /> lot level makes a whole lot of sense. <br /> Stickney stated he is all ears and that it sounds like a good plan. <br /> Page 20 of 37 <br />