Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2020 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Ms. Mueller said she thought the applicant consolidated the lots into one lot some time ago. <br />Oakden said that they are two existing lots of record. <br />Ms. Mueller asked if it is normal for the City to put a sewer line on somebody else's property so that they <br />have this issue. <br />Barnhart and Oakden answered that it is not normal. <br />Ms. Mueller asked why it happened. <br />Mr. Mueller stated the original owner of the property is deceased and there is no way to get an agreement. <br />Ms. Mueller asked if anybody wanted to buy their house. <br />Barnhart said he does not mean to give the message that the City will leave the property owners high and <br />dry. There is an issue that the City wants and needs to resolve both in terms of the service line that goes <br />through the property and the service line that connects the sanitary sewer to the commenter's property. He <br />thinks the City wants to help address that issue. The applicant wants to address that issue in terms of <br />access to the back lot. The commenters want to address the issue in terms of protecting their interests. He <br />thinks all three parties need to work together because all three properties want something out of this <br />arrangement and all three properties ultimately benefit. <br />Mr. Mueller asked what he would do if Mr. Azad will not give him an easement. <br />Barnhart said the City will continue to work with him. <br />Ms. Mueller indicated that is what they did for 11 years for four feet of property. <br />Barnhart said that is the posture the City will take. <br />Ms. Mueller commented that Barnhart is lucky he does not live next door to him. <br />Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. <br />McCutcheon said the Commission almost has to wait until the Ordinance allows for smaller lots. It is <br />proposed in the next 20 years that this will happen but it is not there yet, and maybe the Commission <br />should not be in a hurry and the decision should be made years from now. Presently the minimum lot size <br />is two acres, and he thinks the Commission would need pretty good reasons why they would want to have <br />a lot get smaller than two acres. He understands it was under two acres to begin with, but it would make <br />the lot smaller than it is in a neighborhood which normally has two -acre lots. <br />Gettman stated the request as written does not seem to be worthy of approval for numerous reasons, but it <br />comes down to how to get the three groups together so this can be resolved. The permit request is not <br />consistent with the neighborhood. The outlot was clearly not ever a property, and the applicant is trying to <br />set it up to do something else. If the variance is not approved, he is still able to use the outlot but not able <br />to potentially expand. If nothing else, look at what the neighbors have dealt with over the years. On that <br />grounds alone he would have trouble approving this. The Commission has to send this to the Council and <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />