07-20-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner noted it says the Planning Commission"may require"the subdivider and then it says"prepare"a sketch plan. He noted from the last meeting it indicates the word was"submit"and it was changed to "prepare,"so both"may"and"prepare"leaves it open to the Commission and he supports the language as proposed. Gettman clarified that when Barnhart answered Bollis' question, he was talking about parcels versus one property. What's being discussed is when there is a large parcel that someone wants to subdivide such as in the North Arm area, where someone has four acres they want to subdivide at some point. He gave the example if the owner is parsing out one piece initially and convincing the Commission that this is the best thing since sliced bread and the Commission buys it; and then they come back and say they are now in a predicament that they cannot subdivide the rest of the land,they need a variance. Barnhart is trying to get some of the language upfront and put it on the record so it shows the Commission has given permission for the first of five parcels. Bollis said Gettman brought up a good point. Gettman was talking about a multi-stage development versus the way the language is written, which is if someone owns property next to a property that you are going to develop,the Commission may request the owner to submit a plan for that whether they have a plan or not. That can bring up some negative impacts for the property owner. He gets the intent and thinks it is prudent to ask the owner the question,but if it is a four-acre parcel and the owner comes to the City with a plan to develop half of it, he feels like there should be something in the code that says, "I see you are creating this outlot. What is the intent for the outlot?"When it comes to adjacent properties to the one being developed, he thinks it is an overreach. The question can be asked. And if the owner is willing to show it,that's great;but to him, it is overreaching. He is okay with asking but not demanding,which is how it is written. "Prepare"is better,but it needs something different in order for him to support it. Ressler noted that Bollis and Gettman agree but they were saying it differently. One person is asking for the owner to go on record and say it,which the Commission can already today do. He can see the Commission going back three years later and saying there is no reason to include the language because the Commission can request it without the language. That is why he is opposed to it, because the Commission can ask for it whether it is in the language or not. Saying that the Commission"may"is stating the same thing. The Applicant comes up,the Commission asks for their intent which goes on record,which can be used against them in the deliberation of future developments. Libby stated the key word is"may"because the Commission is not talking about hard and fast numbers as far as requirements. If the Planners feel there is something there that could trigger an issue, it gives them latitude to be able to have the ability to do that without having something that is very rigid and specific that may need to be changed later. He likes the word"may" and thinks it is constructive for the Planners and Staff to be able to have the latitude. Ressler commented the Planning Commission already has that latitude with or without the language. Barnhart agreed with Ressler. Kirchner indicated if an owner is in front of the Commission saying they are going to subdivide property and the Commission asks what they are going to do with the adjacent lot,they can just say, "Well, we think we are going to do"whatever the case may be. The language allows the Commission to ask them to provide a sketch plan rather than the owner arbitrarily talking at the podium. It allows the Commission to have the owner put pen to paper and show an illustrative rather than a general conversation at a hearing. Page 15 of 19