08-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 15, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Bollis said he is not in favor of adding additional requirements upon Applicants. Barnhart referred to the language: “Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision,” and stated the idea is more of a comprehensive planning approach to a piecemeal subdivision as far as how it fits together so the City knows where roads should continue through or if they should, how stormwater is managed, etc., to get a sketch plan. Kirchner referenced the language, “Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire,” and asked how the City determines that someone has submitted their sketch plan and gotten approval for the lot and now the person bought the lot next door, but at the time they submitted that application and got approval, they were not intending to purchase the other one. He said it seems difficult to enforce or have guidance. Barnhart stated it is more for the situations where the property owner comes forward and says, “I own this property and am going to try to acquire the next-door property and this is my subdivision,” rather than doing a subdivision and five years later you buy the neighboring property. The intent is for when a property owner is looking to add to it and then subdivides the first property. Ressler asked Bollis if he could expand his position. Bollis said it is personal to him because it came up in an application he had -- multiple lots next to each other, no intention of subdividing one -- but the way it is written, if someone applies to subdivide a lot, the City can require them to produce a sketch plan for a piece of property they have no intention of subdividing, which does not seem to make any sense and could possibly pigeonhole the property owner into a sketch plan for that piece of property which has no intention of ever being subdivided. He noted it is appropriate to ask that of an Applicant but it should not be a requirement. Barnhart clarified that it is a “may require” versus a “shall require.” Bollis stated with the current language the Planning Commission could say, “We see that you own adjacent property over here; we want to see a plan for that property.” Barnhart said that would only be if the property owner indicated an interest in acquiring the property. Bollis noted it is written as “or currently own it.” He does not agree with it; it does not make sense to him. Ressler asked if, as currently written, they would have the ability to mandate it in the deliberation of the application in the event of subdivision, so at least that could be a trigger if the subdivision application came in. Barnhart said the Planning Commission does not have the authority to require it. The Council would have to ultimately say yes, they need to see the plan. The language gives the Commissioners more power to look comprehensively at changes occurring in the neighborhood. If the language is not included, the Commission does not have the right to ask for the additional information.