08-21-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) Stoddard stated Lot I needs to conform with the existing City Codes. Graham suggested a condition be placed on the subdivision that upon sale of the lot, the lot must be developed within a certain period of time. Smith inquired whether the City has allowed an accessory structure to remain on a lot without a principal structure in the past. Gaffron stated a situation did exist on North Arm Drive where a swimming pool remained for three or four ycais and eventually became a problem. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any other situation similar to this. Lindquist stated in his view the Applicant should perhaps be given a year to a year and a half in which to make a decision on what to do with Lot I and the storage building. Weinberger inquired whether a similar situation occurred on Little Orchard Road where the bam was permitted to remain without an existing structure. Gaffron stated it is his recollection the property owner was given approximately a year in which the bam could remain on the lot without a principal stmeture, but that the owner was in the process of developing that land. Gaffron stated he does not have any major concerns w ith the storage building remaining on the lot w ithout a principal structure provided ow nership of both lots docs not change. Gaffron stated there would need to be a covenant on Lot I filed w ith the City once the lot is sold indicating the property needs to be developed w ithin a certain period of time or the shed needs to be removed. Graham stated he would be agreeable with that. Smith inquired whether that would apply if ownership of either lot changes. Gaffron stated both lots would need to remain in common ownership, and as soon as ownership of one lot changes, the covenant would become effective. Nygard stated another trigger would be construction on Lot 1. Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission has been clear on this in the past and they should continue to follow past practices and only allow the shed to rentain for a limited period of time if the property is not developed. Graham stated a covenant could contain w hatever condition the Planning Commission requested and would show up in the title opinion letter at the time of final plat approval. Lindquist stated it would be his preference that a limited period of time be granted for the shed to remain. PAGE 11 Jiik ..iliMi