07-21-2014 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 18 be appropriate for the applicant to pay back a portion of the credit if the easement is vacated, as the legal basis leading to the vacation enacted in April of 2014 is not applicable to 4750. The Planning Commission should open the public hearing and consider comments from the public and the applicant. If the Planning Commission concludes that there is public value in retaining the conservation easement, then a recommendation for denial of the vacation request would be in order. If the Planning Commission finds that there is no public value in retaining the easement, then a recommendation for vacation approval would be in order. Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, stated he is the owner of the property and that he was here when the City Council approved the vacation of the easement for the other piece of property. Stephenson stated while it was mentioned previously that there was threatened litigation, which was the reason for the City to review the easement, from that point forward there was no mention that it was due to threatened litigation but a pretty convincing presentation was given that the easement did not have any public purpose. In addition, the resolution says it is in the best interests of the City to vacate the easement. Stephenson indicated he was at the meeting when the other portion of the easement was vacated and that he was in agreement with the vacation but that he questioned why the City would only vacate half the easement if it is in the best interests of the City. Stephenson stated he was told at that time that the City could not amend the easement since notification was not sent out for my property. Stephenson stated he would like to call the Planning Commission’s attention to the resolution where it says that it is primarily grass, appears to be yard, and is surrounded by a private fence. There is no public use of the property by the grassland south area due to the nature and viability of the grassland south area, including its utility for the citizens of Orono. Staff finds that there is limited to no public interest in maintaining the grassland south portion of the conservation easement. The resolution goes on to say: whereas, the conservation easement identifies an area referred to as grassland south. The portion of the grassland south affecting the subject property is no longer needed for public purpose. The resolution further says: whereas, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the subject property. Stephenson stated he is in agreement with the resolution and that he has spoken with Staff about vacating his portion of the easement. Stephenson stated the easement probably should have never been put on the property in the first place. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Leskinen asked if the original purpose of the easement was for drainage or water filtration. Curtis indicated it offered a stormwater quality benefit as well as protection of the viewshed based on the Conservation Design Analysis. Based on that information, the proposed easement areas were outlined. Curtis stated the overhead shows the grassland easement but noted there are also some other drainage easements and a tree preservation easement on the north part of the property which are not to be vacated. Leskinen asked if the area cannot be disturbed if the easement remains in place. Item #03 - PC Agenda - 07/21/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 06/16/14 [Page 15 of 18]