Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 15, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 14 of 23  <br />  <br />Larson noted in a 1978 letter in the Planning Commission packet (from the then owner Sigrid Vedeler <br />Paige), Item 4 states, “The City of Orono, in not granting my recent request for a variance, has destroyed <br />the value of my property,” which is exactly what happened. The tax assessor was told at some point in the <br />past that there is no sewer stub and the demolition records from 1981 show sewer marked as none. <br /> <br />Larson stated the archives show the neighbor across the street attempted to buy the property for 50 cents <br />on the dollars but he was not able to purchase the property. The fence does encroach in the north corner <br />and the fence is now acting as a natural silt fence that protects the runoff. <br /> <br />Larson stated as it relates to runoff, it is impossible for this property to flood since it cannot flow uphill. <br />The photo from 1978 that shows water up against the garage came from an ice dam that thawed in the <br />spring and resulted in water backing up against the garage and flowing through it. Larson commented <br />somehow or other that was considered flooding. <br /> <br />Larson noted there are no drainage easements for this property and the neighbors and City do not have <br />drainage easement. Larson stated the large boulevard of 19 feet should be considered in granting the <br />street setback variance. <br /> <br />Larson indicated they have hired a professional engineer, professional architects, and surveyors to assist <br />with this project. The trees can be protected during the construction and the owners do not want them to <br />be removed. Larson indicated over the years, since everyone was being told there is no sewer, the trees <br />were planted in that area and that it has cost them $500 to locate all the trees. <br /> <br />Larson stated the bottom line is that there was a house and garage there at one time and the city’s <br />engineers designed and installed a sewer stub on this property. Larson commented he is sure the former <br />city fathers knew the sewer stub was going in there and that the intent of the sewer stub was that it would <br />someday be hooked up to a bathroom for a house someday. Larson stated this is clearly a lot of record and <br />that clearly the developer did not dedicate this land as commons. This lot is not a park and not a common <br />area but rather private property. Larson noted the survey shows that a park at one time existed on one of <br />the neighbor’s properties that now has a house. <br /> <br />Larson indicated this situation is no different than what just happened over on Maple Place. The <br />developer was told there were no sewer stubs over there but, as it turns out, there is a sewer stub on every <br />lot. The lots on Maple Place are 50’ x 100’ and this lot is 80’ x 120’. <br /> <br />As it regards the resolution that was previously approved, Larson commented it is a shame what was <br />actually put into writing. Item 2-A states the lot is 8,000 square feet when the lot is actually 9,400 square <br />feet. Under the practical difficulties law, if there is an error in the report, it supports a variance to be <br />granted on the property. The resolution states the lot is100 feet in depth when the land is 120 feet in <br />depth. Larson stated there is an adequate area to construct a house and that it will fit into the setbacks. <br /> <br />Larson stated the property owners were never assessed for a sewer unit but they were assessed for a sewer <br />lateral. As far as tax purposes, the property has never been evaluated properly since the tax assessor was <br />told there is no sewer there. <br />Larson indicated his attorneys have looked at the property and that they feel it is a building site. Larson <br />stated they are willing to work with the City and the neighbors on this project. The proposed home will <br />not block the neighbor’s view of the lake since their house is 20 feet higher than this house will be. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/19/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 07/15/2013