Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 21, 2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated it could not be replaced. Barnhart stated there is a distinction between a nuisance issue <br /> and a nonconformity. Barnhart stated the ordinance is not regulating where the trees can be and provides <br /> a distinction between a living wall and what is naturally growing. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the living wall can be past the 75-foot setback or the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Barnhart stated it would be the 75-foot setback. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the City does not have some firmer rules, it may come down to neighbor arguing with <br /> neighbor. Schoenzeit noted Council Member Walsh has said that the City farces neighbors to fight and <br /> bring litigation because the City is not helping, and anything the City can do to help this,he is in favor of. <br /> Thiesse stated his preference would be to include the average lakeshore setback and to have the spacing s <br /> be two times the width or five feet on center with an opening of only a few inches. <br /> Berg asked if there are a lot of complaints about this. <br /> Barnhart stated there are a fair number of them and that he sees the potential for more. <br /> Thiesse asked if the glare definition would also cover reflective light. Thiesse stated reflective light <br /> would likely not reach the limit on the meter but it could still be an annoyance. <br /> Barnhart stated it would not be covered in the ordinance and that the line has to be drawn somewhere. <br /> Barnhart stated the glare would be measured by a light meter. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:42 p.m. <br /> Jim Mandel, 3155 North Shore Drive, stated when he sees the row of 25-foot arborvitaes on his <br /> neighbor's property blocking his view of the lake, in his opinion it is a travesty. Mandel stated when <br /> something like this is done in a malicious manner,there is no reason for it, and until the City stops this <br /> type of activity, there will always be someone who takes advantage of it. Mandel stated they happen to <br /> be victims of a living wall and that they hope it doesn't happen to someone else. <br /> Mandel stated a living wall is invasive, deteriorates property values, closes the property in, and is <br /> annoying. Mandel noted in a number of situations the lot lines along the water do not run perpendicular <br /> and so it is possible for someone who]ives on the water to construct living walls that totally block the <br /> view of the water for their neighbors when they live on the lake. Mandel stated a person who lives on the <br /> lake pays a lot in taxes and that they should be able to enjoy their view of the lake. <br /> Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated he understands the issues with the living wall and that he <br /> lives with it also. Russin stated he is here tonight, however, to talk about the lighting issues. Russin <br /> noted Staff defines it as a nuisance, which is how he views it as well. <br /> Russin indicated he has spent some time looking on the web at other cities' light ordinances and they tend <br /> to classify a lighting nuisance as a private nuisance that is an interference with a person's enjoyment and <br /> use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners are those in rightful possession of land, have the <br /> right to unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its <br /> occupation. Examples of a nuisance include things that would interfere with the comfort, convenience or <br /> Page 43 of 46 <br />