Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart said it is the City Attorney's opinion that if it is in the State statute,the City does not need to <br /> restate it.The City has 120 days to act on a preliminary plat application. For a final plat,it is 60 days;the <br /> final plat can be extended another 60 days by notice before the first 60 days expires. That is written in the <br /> State statue and the City is purposely not restating what the State statute says. <br /> Bollis said, in Section 82-84, Line 623, it is saying the City Administrator shall classify the proposed <br /> subdivision in accordance with Section 82-15 but that the City is doing away with the classification. <br /> Barnhart thanked Bollis for catching the error. <br /> Bollis asked, in Section 82-112, Line 727, Item c, if he was correct that that is currently not in the code <br /> but is additional. <br /> Barnhart stated if the information is underlined, it is not included in the code. <br /> Bollis said he is not in favor of adding additional requirements upon Applicants. <br /> Barnhart referred to the language: "Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the <br /> property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision,the Planning Commission <br /> may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the <br /> possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision,"and stated the idea <br /> is more of a comprehensive planning approach to a piecemeal subdivision as far as how it fits together so <br /> the City knows where roads should continue through or if they should, how stormwater is managed, etc., <br /> to get a sketch plan. <br /> Kirchner referenced the language, "Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire," <br /> and asked how the City determines that someone has submitted their sketch plan and gotten approval for <br /> the lot and now the person bought the lot next door, but at the time they submitted that application and got <br /> approval,they were not intending to purchase the other one. He said it seems difficult to enforce or have <br /> guidance. <br /> Barnhart stated it is more for the situations where the property owner comes forward and says, "I own this <br /> property and am going to try to acquire the next-door property and this is my subdivision,"rather than <br /> doing a subdivision and five years later you buy the neighboring property. The intent is for when a <br /> property owner is looking to add to it and then subdivides the first property. <br /> Ressler asked Bollis if he could expand his position. <br /> Bollis said it is personal to him because it came up in an application he had--multiple lots next to each <br /> other, no intention of subdividing one--but the way it is written, if someone applies to subdivide a lot, <br /> the City can require them to produce a sketch plan for a piece of property they have no intention of <br /> subdividing,which does not seem to make any sense and could possibly pigeonhole the property owner <br /> into a sketch plan for that piece of property which has no intention of ever being subdivided.He noted it <br /> is appropriate to ask that of an Applicant but it should not be a requirement. <br /> Barnhart clarified that it is a"may require"versus a"shall require." <br /> Page 9 of 19 <br />