Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 <br />(#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsea^Jim and June Touve - Continued) <br />Lisa Olsen asked for an explanation of the process by which properties become legally <br />combined. Gafl'ron said people make the request directly to the County or request the <br />City to submit a letter to the County on their behalf Olsen asked w hat format is followed <br />to make this legal GatTron said the format requires the signature of the property ow ners <br />and acceptance on the County ’s part Olsen asked if there is any record show ing the legal <br />combination. GatTron said there is not noting it likely occurred during the 1950-1960's. <br />Olsen disagreed with the way the lots were noted in the recommendation of legal <br />combination. Gaftron said the terminology for legal combination refers to the tax <br />document, and since the County shows it as such, he needs to rely on that intormation. <br />Olsen felt the legal records of the property indicate something new w as created between <br />1963 and 1975. The first two lots are shown taxed together and later include all three. <br />Olsen referenced her letter sent to Stafl'regarding the property's history. Her parents <br />originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lots 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and <br />56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County <br />records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot <br />56, and ow ner's duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56 Olsen said she has never owned <br />lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is <br />shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaftron asked if <br />this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaftron said that was a key point because lots 55 <br />and 56 were on one title. <br />Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error <br />when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three <br />are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this <br />combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. <br />Olsen said she was informed that the most expedient way to handle this issue is through <br />subdivision She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that <br />created the illegal subdivision. She a.sked that the combination be reversed and reflected <br />in the tax records. <br />Gaftron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the <br />lots were legally combined. <br />Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. GafFron said in 1977 <br />and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building <br />permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. <br />Gaftron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that <br />unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off <br />a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel.