My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-14-2014 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2014
>
07-14-2014 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2015 2:30:30 PM
Creation date
3/5/2015 2:30:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 14, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />(7. #14-3674 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF WOLVERTON PLACE, LLC – 4570 <br />WOLVERTON PLACE – CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION, Continued) <br /> <br />Levang indicated she also is in agreement with the vacation of the easement and the recovery of the fee as <br />outlined in Staff’s report. <br /> <br />Mattick asked if a public hearing has been held on this matter. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, stated he is the owner of the property. Stephenson stated there <br />was no discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the fee reimbursement so he had no opportunity <br />to address it. <br /> <br />Stephenson stated the original resolution the City approved when they vacated a portion of the easement <br />says that the portion of the grassland affecting the subject property is no longer needed for public purpose <br />and, whereas, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the conservation <br />easement as it affects the subject property. Stephenson noted there was no mention of any fee previously <br />and that he is confused why his piece should be subject to it when the other piece was not. <br /> <br />Stephenson asked if the fee is always proportionate to the amount of property subject to the easement. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the fee is determined based on the amount of land being developed. Curtis stated the <br />credit is given up to 50 percent based on the amount of land granted in the easement. <br /> <br />Stephenson asked how the Pine View development worked. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that property is not in the five-acre zone. Curtis stated the credit is only available in the <br />5-acre zoning district. <br /> <br />Stephenson asked if it is in the 5-acre zone, whether it is always as a percentage of the amount of land that <br />is in the easement. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the area put into a conservation easement allows the owner the ability to have a credit <br />against the stormwater fee. City Code allows up to 50 percent credit, which is based on a percentage of <br />the total property area that is put into easement. Gaffron stated if 40 percent of the total property is put <br />into an easement, the property owner would receive a 40 percent credit. Gaffron stated the idea is that <br />since areas are being preserved to treat or manage stormwater coming off the property, that the property <br />owner should receive a credit for that. <br /> <br />Stephenson asked if it is always done that way. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it has been done that way because it is in a 5-acre zoning district. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.