Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff has participated in any discussions with the police department regarding <br /> complaints on this property. <br /> Curtis stated Staff was not provided any information <br /> Gaffron stated what they have heard tonight is significantly different than what they have heard in the <br /> past. Staff has not heard from the adjacent neighbors about these issues, which concerns Staff. Gaffron <br /> stated the things that have been mentioned tonight are not what they expect for the site. <br /> Landgraver stated title to a property can be in flux, and asked if there is a conditional use permit attached <br /> to the residential property that allows for parking. <br /> Gaffron indicated the conditional use permit is issued to the main site and there is a parking contract that <br /> goes with the property that specifies that the gravel parking areas on the two residential properties can be <br /> used for marina overflow use. That agreement was put in place a year or two ago because it had been <br /> informally in place during the ownership of Jim Rivers' family,who owned both houses and the marina, <br /> lived on the site and was essentially the owner/operator. <br /> Gaffron stated this is the one site in Orono in the last 30 to 40 years that has not been owned by the <br /> person who operates the marina, which has been a struggle. The fact that Crown Bank apparently owns <br /> the two residential properties does not negate the parking agreement but it brings into question who has <br /> control. The fact that storage and other activities are happening on the residential properties that are not <br /> related to someone living or renting there is a problem that needs to be resolved. <br /> Landgraver asked if someone could purchase the residential property and then choose not to renew the <br /> parking contract. <br /> Gaffron noted the parking contract is a permanent contract and would require the City and the other <br /> parties to reach an agreement to extinguish it. At the time Crown Bank started to take over ownership of <br /> the properties,they contacted the City and they were provided with a copy of the agreement. <br /> Bennett asked if it is residential property,whether the only thing they could do with it is to restore it and <br /> rent it. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. There has been discussion in the past on whether those two properties <br /> should be rezoned. If they are not rezoned,the question becomes what is the logical residential use for it, <br /> and the only logical use is one or two homes. Gaffron noted the two residential properties continue across <br /> CR 15 to the east and part of the property east of County Road 15 that is part of the residential property is <br /> actually zoned commercial. <br /> Landgraver stated the fact that there is a purchase agreement in play and the boat club has an interest in <br /> purchasing the residential property, the outcome of that is significant. If the boat club purchases the <br /> property,the City is then dealing with a single entity and the owner can be held to certain standards. If <br /> there is bifurcated ownership, it gets more complicated. <br /> Page 19 of 25 <br />