06-18-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 2I« 2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE, CONTINUED) to\^auls the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan demonstrating how’ they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. Smilli inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for applications in the future. Gaffron stated most lots of this si/e currently have a house erected on the property or have been considered unbuitdable for years. GafTron staled 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 on application where there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only 50 feel wide where 140 feet is required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a dock for the lakcshore lot. Klu.li inquired how a prospective buyer might become awaa* that the lot has been deemed unbuitdable. Kluih noted that decision by the Council is not filed 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 pn>pcrty owner could find out that information by asking the City to review that file. Smith inquired Itow many lots that have been deemed unbuildabic the City has approv ed in the past with iu> sewer. Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property , there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildabic at the time Uie sewer was installed, the City more than likely would not Itav e assessed them the 50 fvx>t frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approvcl. the .Applicant would owe the updated unit and plant charge Smith inquired if a small cabin had c.vistcd on this lot at the lime sewer was insulled in this area, how that property would have '.<ecn treated. Gaffron stated 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 lakeshore lot. Rocsicr stated the diK-k is not legal. Risesler stated her main purpose in purchasing the pt «perty was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if tlie Hrst part of the application were tabled and the second pan approved, whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first pan of the application with the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first pan of this application. PAGE 13