My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-23-1991 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
09-23-1991 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2019 8:50:16 AM
Creation date
4/30/2019 8:50:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
�i <br />,;MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — SEPTEMBER 231 1991 <br />MORATORIUM DISCUSSION — CONT. <br />Gaffron asked what if both lots meet the requirements but <br />they are vacant. <br />Jabbour noted that the intent of the moratorium was to <br />protect property owners from future rules which may inhibit <br />development of that property. <br />Barrett noted that the definition of a subdivision for the <br />moratorium should be taken from the municipal code, which would <br />include lot line rearrangements where variances would be <br />needed, and would not include those that do not require variance. <br />approval. <br />Gaffron asked about the variance fee. <br />Mabusth noted that there will be legal and publishing fees. <br />Council left it up to staff to charge at their discretion. <br />- Gaffron advised that Paul Boyke on Lydiard Lake is proposing <br />to subdivide his property which includes designated wetlands. <br />However the ordinary high water mark is not available at this <br />time, but depending upon that and the future setback <br />requirements, the property may end up not being subdividable. <br />Boyke was present and explained that the property was <br />previously the subject of a metes and bounds subdivision in which <br />a portion of the property was inaccurately combined with another <br />parcel. He explained that the property was sold and Boyke has <br />had to negotiate with the new owner to change the property <br />boundaries to what they were approved as. Boyke wanted to know <br />if it should become an unbuildable lot because of the new <br />requirements, would it fall under condemnation proceedings. <br />Barrett noted that this may be considered as a taking or <br />temporary taking. He felt that this is definitely an application <br />which would need to apply for a variance to the moratorium if the <br />owner wished to proceed. He advised that the variance approval <br />would allow the subdivision and if the building permit for the <br />new residence were issued before the new regulations were <br />ratified, the current requirements would be followed. If the <br />permit was not to be issued until after the new regulations were <br />to be adopted, the lot may become unbuildable again under the new <br />regulations. <br />Butler felt that this was a classic example why there was a <br />moratorium.. <br />Boyke' explained he is trying to buy a new business and needs <br />to act right away. <br />Butler suggested that he wait until the new regulations are <br />adopted. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.