My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/15/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
09/15/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 12:22:30 PM
Creation date
12/21/2018 12:22:23 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 15,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> City's hardcover ordinances. Schoenzeit noted the house would be right in the middle of the average <br /> lakeshore setback asked how that would be addressed given the fact that that is not allowed. <br /> Haugen stated for many,many years there was no setback and then it became 0-75 feet from the lake. <br /> Haugan stated the sight line is 125 feet. Haugan stated if that cannot be changed, then the property is <br /> absolutely 100 percent is worthless because the property is approximately 120 feet. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if he is acknowledges that,then why is he here. <br /> Haugen stated if someone owns property,no governmental entity can render it worthless. Haugan stated <br /> without an average lakeshore setback, it is worthless and it effectively has been taken. <br /> Berg noted every other landowner in Orono has to abide by the average lakeshore setback. Berg asked if <br /> this situation is somewhat unique that this property should not be held to that standard. <br /> Haugen stated when there was once a house on the property and it is currently a legal lot, a city cannot <br /> pass laws to make it impossible for someone to use it for housing. Haugan stated if the house were still <br /> there,this conversation would not have happened and the house would have been grandfathered in. <br /> Berg stated with new construction or if the house were abandoned, all bets are off, and that they would <br /> then be having this discussion. <br /> Haugen stated the neighbors in question each have three lots that were combined but that does not mean <br /> they are not allowed to have one 50-foot lot. <br /> Leskinen noted at one time this lot was platted as a commons lot. <br /> Haugen stated no one seems to know what that means and the property was never given or dedicated to <br /> the public or anyone. Haugan stated the property was owned privately as far back as 1910 by people who <br /> constructed a home on it and lived there. Haugan stated he is not sure whether anyone knows what the <br /> commons designation means. <br /> Page 41 of 59 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.