Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Thursday, August 24, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />Printup clarified there are two different people altogether and the only one the Council is looking at is on <br />the right of the map on screen and above it. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the problem is the lower lots. <br /> <br />Crosby said they need those portions to be somewhat conforming even though they’re non-conforming, <br />and asked if that is correct. <br /> <br />Walsh noted they are currently conforming, but they want to subdivide. <br /> <br />Barnhart clarified that one is non-conforming right now, noting the one on the left of the map on screen is <br />non-conforming because of width. <br /> <br />Walsh said once they start subdividing, they are at 50% of the four lots being non-conforming. <br /> <br />Mr. Gamble noted the one on the right onscreen has the acreage requirement and the new lot is 100 feet <br />wide and meets the zoning requirement. <br /> <br />Barnhart said he thinks what Walsh is referring to is the “finger” that goes North of the lagoon as it is 25 <br />feet wide and the requirement, even if it’s a favorable zoning location, would be 100 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Gamble said that is part of the South lot, rather than the North lot. <br /> <br />Barnhart agreed that it is, but it’s also lake-frontage and that’s where the minimum width would come in. <br />He said this lot has four frontages, which they do not see a lot of. <br /> <br />Crosby asked to clarify that Lot 2474 is non-conforming and Lot 2480 is conforming. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered yes. <br /> <br />Johnson noted to make the split it becomes non-conforming because the “finger” goes up the side and <br />does not meet the lake width. <br /> <br />Crosby asked if the Council has ever done this in the past, noting that right now for conformity, they are <br />calculating the land North of the lagoon. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered yes, they are including some of the land North of the lagoon for both lots. <br /> <br />Crosby asked if it’s a possibility to combine them into one lot, although that obviously wouldn’t be a <br />lakeshore lot. <br /> <br />Walsh stated you just can’t get four lots out of it. <br /> <br />Crosby agreed. <br /> <br />Barnhart said he thinks the challenge with this parcel is where the boundary line is for Lot 2474 south of <br />the lagoon. He noted they are limited by that amount of land and they cannot create or add more land to