Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br /> • Touve- Continued) <br /> #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June ou e ) <br /> Lisa Olsen asked for an explanation of the process by which properties become legally <br /> combined. Gaffron said people make the request directly to the County or request the <br /> City to submit a letter to the County on their behalf. Olsen asked what format is followed <br /> to make this legal. Gaffron said the format requires the signature of the property owners <br /> and acceptance on the County's part. Olsen asked if there is any record showing the legal <br /> combination. Gaffron said there is not noting it likely occurred during the 1950-1960's. <br /> Olsen disagreed with the way the lots were noted in the recommendation of legal <br /> combination. Gaffron said the terminology for legal combination refers to the tax <br /> document, and since the County shows it as such, he needs to rely on that information. <br /> Olsen felt the legal records of the property indicate something new was created between <br /> 1963 and 1975. The first two lots are shown taxed together and later include all three. <br /> Olsen referenced her letter sent to Staff regarding the property's history. Her parents <br /> originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lots 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and <br /> 56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County <br /> records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot <br /> 56, and owner's duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56. Olsen said she has never owned <br /> lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is <br /> shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaffron asked if <br /> 410 this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaffron said that was a key point because lots 55 <br /> and 56 were on one title. <br /> Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error <br /> when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three <br /> are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this <br /> combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. <br /> Olsen said she was informed that the most expedient way to handle this issue is through <br /> subdivision. She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that <br /> created the illegal subdivision. She asked that the combination be reversed and reflected <br /> in the tax records. <br /> Gaffron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the <br /> lots were legally combined. <br /> Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. Gaffron said in 1977 <br /> and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building <br /> permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. <br /> Gaffron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that <br /> unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off <br /> a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel. <br /> • <br /> 9 <br />