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. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLISICHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) McMillan stated the reason for the driveway is going away with the development and that she is concerned about the driveway becoming a problem down the road. McMillan stated currently it is an access to a home but that the whole area will have a whole new access. The original intent of the driveway will be going away with the cul-de-sac and the extension of Kintyre. McMillan stated as a result she is concerned about keeping the secondary access. Bollis asked if there is any specific code prohibiting a secondary access. Gaffron stated one of the things Staff was asked to look at by the applicant was an access to two public roads. Staff has acknowledged that the access to Tamarack Outlot A, partly owned by Lots 5 and 6, is not actually a public road but abuts a public road. Gaffron stated it becomes an interpretation by virtue of having a private driveway in addition to a public road since a property is only supposed to have one access to a public road. Gaffron noted that language is not part of the zoning code but is part of the road standards. Gaffron stated Staff can concede that it does not abut a public road, but the concept of having two access points to serve one lot is functionally the same as having a secondary access to another road. Mattick stated Staff tried to figure out a way to govern status quo. If that access is blocked, then the City will have a property that the applicant owns or has a right to that he would not be allowed to use anymore. Mattick stated prohibiting the secondary access might be advantageous for the neighbor, but the idea was that the City would allow the applicant to keep what he currently has. Levang stated it does not seem reasonable for the City to take that away since the applicant currently owns two-thirds of that road. Fleming stated he understands that rationale but that the outlot is not developable. Fleming indicated he is trying to deal with the future uncertainties and that the need for that driveway should cease to exist since it was originally put there for a specific reason which is now going away. Levang asked if the City needs to demand or require a covenant for the secondary access. Mattick stated they are talking about doing covenants outside of the subdivision that are between two private property owners. Fleming stated as he looks down the road, he is unsure he will be able to explain how it works, and that it also becomes a question of whether there should be a secondary access. Mattick stated the document will state that that lot has a certain number of rights concerning the secondary access. Page 19 of 33