04-20-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) KEVIN AND LISA OLSEN/JIM AND JUNE TOU\T, 4196 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:49- 8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinu and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a metes and bounds simple subdivision to separate a platted lot that was legally combined in the past. Lots 55, 56, and 57 were legally combined. Mr. Touve sold lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without lot 57. They w'ere advised that this constituted an illegal subdivision and would require a formal subdivision with the City, but the City staff would not recommend approval due to the sub-standard lot situation and given history of ow nership of the property. Gaffron noted there are wetlands located on lots 57-61. Gaffron said he did not recommend separating lot 57 from lots 55 and 56 due to the lot sizes and "lot of record" status. The zoning is one acre. Lots 55-57 have a total acreage of .81 and meet the 80% requirement for buildability. Any reduction would make the size more substandard and give Touve increased potential for building within the remaining lots. Gaffron noted that Touve has not made any application to date regarding future building and that would be a separate application. Gaffron reviewed the issues for consideration as noted on page 2 of the memo Lots 58- 61 when combined would be under the one acre requirement, and contain only .48 acre of dry buildable, which would not meet the standard. A driveway would also have to cross over the wetlands Gaffron indicated that the request to add Lot 57 to 58-61 would result in making a substandard group of three lots into a smaller group requiring variances. He feels consideration also has to be given to lots 58-61 if combined on their own merit. The deeds were created over 10 years ago, and the Olsen's have paid taxes on the 3 lots without having a deed to all three lots. Olsen ’s now have the property up for sale, and Gaffron believes the intent is only to sell the two lots. This needs to be resolved. If the lots are not separated, lot 57 would have to be sold with the other two lots. Gaffron said neither City or County records document the history behind the combination, and he recommends denial of the application. 8