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 3 of 13 <br /> <br />Printup asked if there is any land there that is used for runoff mitigation from the County Road in the <br />Navarre area. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered they haven’t done a lot of engineering yet, but the understanding is that quite a bit of <br />stormwater comes from the shoreline and points North through this property and may impact buildable <br />sites. He said water does come through and he doesn’t believe there is an easement or anything like that <br />to protect that area. <br /> <br />Walsh clarified that Tract B meets everything assuming that the wetland gets resolved. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered true. <br /> <br />Walsh asked Barnhart to explain the width issue with Tract A as he didn’t quite understand the specifics. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered when a property owner comes forward and wants to split their property, Staff looks at <br />whether both lots meet the minimum requirements of the applicable zoning district. In some cases, they <br />do and in some cases they don’t, and when they don’t Staff looks at the “why.” Is it because the applicant <br />is not willing to adjust a property line to meet the requirements? Barnhart said in this situation the <br />Applicant is somewhat fixed by the side lot lines and again it’s up to the Council’s discretion whether or <br />not they want to support a subdivision that creates a non-conforming lot. He said the issue or comment <br />he wants to make in regards to this situation is the non-conforming width is what is there now, this <br />subdivision does not improve it, nor does it hurt it. Barnhart said they’d get to the driveway coming up <br />later. This subdivision does not increase the non-conformity nor help the non-conformity in terms of <br />width for the Southern portion of the lot. <br /> <br />Walsh said typically or historically the Council doesn’t approve subdivisions that do not meet the current <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied for a lot width he cannot remember an approval, and there are other standards in play <br />that Council has supported in the past, the driveway for example. <br /> <br />Walsh stated as that is his background statement, what would be Barnhart’s recommendation and why <br />would he and Staff be recommending it. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered he doesn’t know if he has a recommendation, the point here is to see if Council is <br />comfortable having a situation where they will create a lot that is non-conforming. He noted most other <br />scenarios where they are creating a non-conforming lot it is an easy and fast no for Staff not to <br />recommend it and Council not to support it. In this situation it’s a little different in the sense that they did <br />not create that as a conformity issue. <br /> <br />Johnson stated the question is whether the Council will allow a subdivision on a lot that is already non- <br />conforming to be divided even though it is a lawful non-conforming lot right now. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered yes that is very well put and is exactly the question in the memo. <br /> <br />Johnson said it’s a non-conforming lot that extends over water to the other side, which has its own <br />repercussions, and asked for example, if someone wanted more hardcover on one side, would they go <br />across the bay to someone on the other side to subdivide. He said it opens up some questions for him.