06-18-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (WI-2675 DONNA LILE, CONTINUED) towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a she plan demonstrating how they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for applications in the future. Gaffron staled most lots of this size currently have a house erected on the property or has e been considered unbuildable for years. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could sec similar lots in the future when those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. Stoddard staled he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving an application where there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only SO feet wide where 140 feet is required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a diK*k for the lakcshore lot. Klu Ji inquired how a prospective buyer might become aware that the lot has been deemed unbuildable. Klulh noted that decision by the Council is not tiled with the County Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s. the City Council did not file variance approvals or denials. Since that time the City has filed them on the chain on title, fhe property owner could find out tlut information by asking the City to rev iew that file. Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the pa.st with no sewer. Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property, there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. GafTron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildable at the time the sewer was installed, the City more than likely would not have assessed them the 50 foot frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the .Applicant would owe the updated unit and plant charge. Smith inquired if a small cabin had e.xistcd on this lot at the time sewer was insulled in this area, how that property would have lo.vn treated. Gaffron staled they would have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with i unit charge and a plant charge. Stoddard inquired whether there is a dock currently on the lakcshore lot. Roesicr staled the dix'k is not legal. Rocsicr staled her mam purpose m purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if the first part of the application were tabled and the second part approved, whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first part of the application w ith the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of this application. PAGE 13