12-12-2016 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) The resolution now includes language that addresses the existing accessory buildings on Outlot A. The resolution states that "Outlot A is created for potential future development and no principal residence structure may be constructed on Outlot A unless or until it is converted into a lot via a platting process. The two accessory buildings proposed to remain on Outlot A shall be considered as non -conforming upon removal of the existing principal residence structure on Outlot A. These two accessory buildings are allowed to remain as is. However, no new accessory buildings shall be constructed on Outlot A until such time that I is combined with a parcel that contains a principal structure or it is converted to lot status via a future platting process and a new principal structure on Outlot A is constructed." Discussion at the September 12 meeting did not reach a solid conclusion regarding the future use of the driveway in Outlot A, Tamarack Hill, as a secondary access for Lots 5 and 6, which both abut Outlot A. The developer initially suggested a scenario as follows: The back driveway would be used as -is for construction of homes on Lots 5 and 6 until such time that the fmal lift of asphalt is placed on the Kintyre extension at which time driveways from the new cul-de-sac for Lots 5 and 6 would have to be installed within 60 days and construction access to Outlot A would cease. 2. After that, the developer has proposed that the back driveway be retained as a permanent secondary access for both Lots 5 and 6 and notes that the new lot line between 5 and 6 is centered on the back driveway so it could serve both. The developer feels it would be difficult to access the small barn on Lot 5 without the back driveway. As noted in the September 16 memo, there are a number of reasons Staff suggested that the back driveway should not become a permanent secondary access and should be abandoned. Those reasons are outlined in Staffs report. The developer has indicated that while he intends to build a new home to live in on Lot 5 or Lot 6, at this time no decision has been made as to which lot. The developer would prefer that any covenants addressing permanent secondary access be transferable, which is also addressed in the development contract. Staff would offer the following scenarios with regard to temporary use of Outlot A during new home construction for remodeling of the existing home on Lot 5: 1. In the event that a new home is proposed on Lot 5 or Lot 6 prior to completion of the new road and cul-de-sac to a usable status, a building permit can be issued for Lot 5 or Lot 6 using the back driveway for access until such time that usable status of the road and cul-de-sac is reached. 2. In the event that such a building permit is approved for Lot 5 or Lot 6, a permit for construction on the opposite lot will not be issued. The intent being that no more than one home may be constructed using the back driveway, Page 12 of 33