Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 16, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 16 of 18  <br />  <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that is correct. <br /> <br />Stephenson stated the remaining part of the grassland easement is also inconsistent since that’s where the <br />proposed septic systems are located. Stephenson stated it does not make sense that that is where the <br />grassland easement is and it is inconsistent with other prior approved agreements with the City as it <br />relates to the septic.Stephenson indicated the property provides lots of water filtration outside of this area <br />and that there is a culvert that also catches the runoff. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if he owned the property at the time the easement was granted. <br /> <br />Stephenson stated he owned the property at the time it was granted. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if he was aware of the easement at that time. <br />Stephenson stated he was slightly aware of it because he was given notice but was not involved in the <br />process. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what can change if the easement is vacated. Thiesse asked if they can subdivide the <br />property any further. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated they cannot. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated to his recollection there is supposed to be a driveway someday going up the hill. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it is a five acre zone with a 100-foot front and rear setback. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted they would not be allowed to construct an accessory structure in their front yard, so the <br />view should not change. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the area could become lawn or landscaped in some way. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the landscaping would diminish its ability to filter the runoff. <br /> <br />Curtis stated it potentially could and that a structure would not be allowed in that area without variances. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is attempting to think what the worst case scenario would be if the easement is <br />vacated. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted the easement on the other property was vacated. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated one of the arguments by the owner during the first vacation was that there is a substantial <br />amount of wetland in that area. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the wetland would increase or decrease the need for the easement. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated in his opinion it would decrease it. Thiesse asked if the property to the east is also <br />involved in the easement. <br /> <br />Item #03 - PC Agenda - 07/21/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 06/16/14 [Page 16 of 18]