Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 19,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated the challenge with that is that adding a new easement or right-of-way introduces the <br /> potential that the neighbor might not necessarily be expecting an easement in that location. Barnhart <br /> stated he does not see a lot of value to the City in doing that, but that the Planning Commission is free to <br /> examine that alternate option more closely. <br /> Sweet noted 3407 does not have a dock but that there is a small stairway. The other three houses have <br /> docks and those have existed since at least 2004. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the City Council meeting on July 10. <br /> Thiesse stated he would agree with Mr. Barnhart's statement and that it would be difficult to recommend <br /> approval on the alternative option since that was not noticed for a public hearing. Thiesse asked if the <br /> Planning Commission can discuss that option. <br /> Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could discuss it. Barnhart stated one option is to vacate it <br /> entirely and the other option is to vacate the right-of-way and then relocate it. Barnhart stated it appears <br /> to be in response to the City's concern about retaining lake access in this area. <br /> Landgraver stated it appears the City would still retain access to the lake and that it would be a responsive <br /> option by the applicant. Landgraver stated he would agree that the City should notify the neighbor. <br /> Thiesse asked if Ms. Sweet would have access to the garage if there was no access over the easement. <br /> Sweet stated she would not have access to either of her garages. <br /> Landgraver asked whether she intends to sell the lot if the right-of-way is relocated. <br /> Sweet stated at this point, if she does not get the easement, she will probably retain both pieces of <br /> property and hopefully sell them at some point in the future. If the right-of-way is moved to the other <br /> side,at some point the small house would be torn down and the property would become one continuous <br /> lot and any new owner would have use of the driveway. <br /> Thiesse asked if another application would be necessary to relocate the right-of-way if the Planning <br /> Commission denied the request tonight. Thiesse stated in his view the Planning Commission cannot act <br /> on that option without providing public notice. <br /> Schwingler commented the Planning Commission can only act on what is in front of them tonight. <br /> Barnhart stated that is true but that the Planning Commission could comment on the alternative option if <br /> they choose. Barnhart stated he does not believe another application requesting vacation and relocating it <br /> would be necessary. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he is not in favor of vacating the easement without a new and similar replacement. <br /> Thiesse and Landgraver stated they also are in agreement with that. <br /> Page 3 of 17 <br />