Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 21,2020 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gettman said that was correct, and he was trying to get back to the taking.He stated the three items need <br /> to be connected--the applicant's access to the lot that's vacant right now,the utility easement, and the <br /> neighbor's access to that utility--and discussed by the City,the commenter, and the applicant. <br /> Mr.Mueller said from his way of looking at it,the applicant wants the driveway closer to his house <br /> because they've had other issues, and then the applicant will have the yard they want. <br /> Libby stated Barnhart's additional information was helpful in trying to stay focused on the core question. <br /> Based on the information and the City's ordinance, he would tend to favor this and allow the parties that <br /> are concerned that are neighbors to still have an opportunity to speak to the Council and thinks the <br /> Council is the body to discuss the issue.There is kind of a lesser of two evils: An ongoing deprivation of <br /> City service to a lot that's already identified and/or a neighbor that could be potentially inconvenienced by <br /> what may happen to the infrastructure and the sewer during construction.The Commission has one group <br /> of empirical information and that's what the ordinance says and how the Commission is guided. What <br /> may happen to the infrastructure of the sewer is unknown, and he thinks the Council is the arbiter that <br /> should hear that. He would vote in favor of approval and agrees with Staff's recommendation. <br /> Erickson said he agrees with Staffs recommendation and Libby's comments.A lot of record indicates a <br /> commitment for a buildable lot and that commitment has been there for a long time. The buildable lot will <br /> not be saleable or usable unless there's an access to a public street,which the applicant is attempting to <br /> provide in a way that follows the ordinances. In the long-term the applicant will have two separate <br /> buildable lots, and this is a logical way to provide that access. He thanked the neighbors for coming <br /> forward and alerting the Commission about the sewer issue,et cetera. He suggested adding a condition to <br /> the motion that would flag that concern or a statement of policy to assure the driveway construction gets <br /> done properly so it doesn't affect their sewer. <br /> Gettman said two questions he still is struggling with are "why there" and "why now." The "why there," <br /> the area where the applicant is proposing to put the driveway is not where the current access is; it is <br /> literally on the border with 222. The place they currently are going over is where the utility easement is, <br /> unless he misunderstood. <br /> Mr.Mueller stated he was correct. <br /> Gettman said it looked like the applicant was purposely proposing to move the driveway to minimize any <br /> impact on their currently built-up home on 200 and give access to something McCutcheon brought up, <br /> which is that today the plan does not allow for the expansion or the building on both lots,that is <br /> something for years from now,and the Commission is talking about granting the applicant access. <br /> McCutcheon said he believed he was mistaken on that point. <br /> McCutcheon asked Oakden if the applicant would be allowed to build on that lot if they wanted to. <br /> Oakden said he was correct. <br /> McCutcheon indicated hindsight is 20/20, but when the applicant built the new house on 200, it would <br /> have been nice to plan for a driveway to get access to the back lot. He asked if where the applicant is <br /> driving now,they have the same problem. <br /> Page 7 of 14 <br />