Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 <br />8. U03-29SI Judith and James Pierpout, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot <br />Line Rearrangement-Continued <br />Murphy asked which calculation on the wetland was correct. Gaffron stated that based on <br />the watershed district ’s maps of wetland, 2S% of the 4-acre property is wetland. If Mr. <br />Pierpont walked the property looking only for open waters, he would have arrived at his <br />calculations technically in error. <br />McMillan stated that wetland has to do with soil and grass types and not necessarily with <br />open water, which fluctuates greatly. <br />McMillan asked Mrs. Pierpont if they had intended to combine the lots in 1990 with the <br />guesthouse CUP. Mrs. Pierpont stated they had intended the lot combination, though it <br />never happened. McMillan stated that the applicants could combine the lots and get only <br />one sewer. <br />Gaffron stated if the lots were combined, the guesthouse as a separate unit would cease to <br />be an issue. However, if the Pierponts only got one sewer, the cost of sewer for each uni t <br />within the project would increase. <br />Moorse stated that the zone requires a 2-acre minimum for a guesthouse in the 2-acre zone <br />so that if the lot were ever subdivided, the guesthouse could stand on its own. In this case, <br />they wouldn’t want the guest house to stand on its own, so would the 2-acre minimum <br />requirement still stand, or could some compromise be worked out where the house <br />remains, but could never be subdivided in the future. Such a compromise would then <br />raise the issue of enforcing the use-restrictions related to the guesthouse in the future. <br />Murphy asked if they could attach a covenant to the property. Moorse stated that a CUP <br />would effectively do the same thing. Gaffron stated that a CUP would run with the <br />property and be permanent. Moorse staled the problem would remain of monitoring for <br />violations of the CUP. <br />McMillan stated that the Pierponts would surely use the guesthouse ^propriately, but the <br />next owner could violate the CUP. When lot line arrangements come up, it gives the City <br />a chance to influence a situation. <br />Mrs. Pierpont asked if it would be possible to make the restrictions part of the property <br />deed. <br />Barrett stated that they have a subdivision application, but do not have an application for a <br />guesthouse before them. In order to grant a variance for the guesthouse, they would need <br />the application and a hardship for that matter. He stated Council could decide on a <br />preliminary basis if they would allow the guesthouse to stand, then require a formal <br />application. They could put conditions into the variance, but could never effectively