Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15, 2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Bollis stated with the current language the Planning Commission could say, "We see that you own <br /> adjacent property over here; we want to see a plan for that property." <br /> Barnhart said that would only be if the property owner indicated an interest in acquiring the property. <br /> Bollis noted it is written as"or currently own it." He does not agree with it; it does not make sense to him. <br /> Ressler asked if, as currently written,they would have the ability to mandate it in the deliberation of the <br /> application in the event of subdivision, so at least that could be a trigger if the subdivision application <br /> came in. <br /> Barnhart said the Planning Commission does not have the authority to require it. The Council would have <br /> to ultimately say yes,they need to see the plan. The language gives the Commissioners more power to <br /> look comprehensively at changes occurring in the neighborhood. If the language is not included,the <br /> Commission does not have the right to ask for the additional information. <br /> Ressler clarified that he meant the City,not just necessarily the Commissioners. <br /> Barnhart said it could be misused by Commissioners that try to overreach, but he thinks that is where it is <br /> a check-and-balance. If the Planning Commission requires it because of what the Commission is seeing as <br /> an application,the Council could ultimately say they do not need that type of information. <br /> Libby commented that his reading of the language,having dealt with a number of circumstances like this <br /> hands-on,the expression of the intention,as it is stated, is essentially also an expression of intent with the <br /> idea that there are so many variables that can happen in these circumstances practically that this leaves it <br /> open for the Planning Commission to look at a number of different circumstances in cases. It is not a <br /> simple block of lots. He said there was an example recently before the Planning Commission where an <br /> Applicant was talking about a similar situation. He has seen it happen so many times that he likes and <br /> favors the language, because it gives enough latitude to the Applicant and how they state what it is they <br /> are trying to accomplish through the sketch plan, and it gives the Commissioners the ability to have that <br /> same sort of flexibility from an advisement and decision-making to advise the Council. He thinks it is <br /> appropriate and prudent language. <br /> Barnhart stated a sketch plan is looking at a comprehensive idea of what could happen in the area and <br /> provides some additional information;the preliminary plat will not include property that you don't own. <br /> Libby said the reason he brought it up and stated it the way he did is because he's had numerous <br /> circumstances where there have been non-buildable outlots that still contributed to the ability to be able to <br /> do a subdivision. <br /> Ressler noted he appreciates the discussion and thought Barnhart did as well. One thing he likes about the <br /> "may"is that it does not make it a requirement and it looks like the discretion falls on the Planning <br /> Commission, which allows the Commission to have discussion over the feasibility of it. He appreciates <br /> that as well because it becomes a collective vote rather than one discretionary Staff member having to <br /> make the decision. <br /> Bollis asked,with the way the language is written, if the Planning Commission is expecting the Applicant <br /> would submit an entire new process for the additional piece/lot. He reads it that way,that they must <br /> Page 10 of 19 <br />