Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />April 17, 2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Curtis said this applicant is unable to be present this evening but has a representative in attendance. The <br />applicant would like to rearrange the lot lines of the subject properties in order to create two regular <br />rectangular -shaped lots. As the lots exists today they are substandard and the L shape of the one lot is not <br />very functional. The resulting lots would still be non -conforming but of a more usual shape. Due to the <br />new nonconformity, the boundary line adjustment does not qualify for administrative approval without <br />prior approval of a variance. No formal action is required this evening, Curtis said, but the Commission <br />should discuss potential issues to be addressed prior to submission of a formal application. She said the <br />proposal could be accomplished in one of two ways and the applicant should be provided the <br />Commission's preferred direction. <br />Bollis summarized that there are two existing lots today accessed primarily off Bayview. This would not <br />change the number of lots but it would make the existing lots more usable and move one access from <br />Bayview to Navarre Lane. <br />Kirchner said he is familiar with the property and is concerned about a possible steep grade for one lot <br />sloping to Navarre Lane. I just worry about are we creating the best possible lot. Any development onto <br />that is going to have some significant retaining walls. <br />Curtis said the home at 3320 Navarre Lane was constructed within the last five years and has a similar <br />grade. <br />Jacob Conklin, a friend of the applicant, said he would attempt to answer questions from the Commission. <br />My understanding from being there, the elevation change is mostly from the line that is drawn for the new <br />division. That is the most change right there. I don't feel there's much elevation change on that lot. <br />Bollis said he appreciates what Commissioner Kirchner pointed out about the elevation. That's something <br />we should definitely look at and make sure we're not creating a problem with this lot line adjustment. But <br />if that is met by the applicant, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't approve something like this. He noted <br />this proposal takes two non -conforming lots and rearranges them into two non -conforming lots that are <br />more suitable for use. <br />McCutcheon said Orono doesn't like flag -shaped lots and the proposal makes sense. To me, it seems like <br />a better situation. <br />Libby asked if it would be possible to create one conforming lot from the two lots. <br />Curtis said that could be done but the applicant cannot be required to combine them. <br />Kraemer said it makes sense to do it like this, it just cleans it up. It does not create any new non- <br />conforming lots. <br />Page 11 of 12 <br />