02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan, Jr. Candace Row'lette arrived at 8:42 p.m Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee represented Staff The meeting was called to order by Chair Schroeder at 7:03 p m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING (#1) 7:00 P.M. #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:57 P.M. The Applicant was represented by his attorney, Larry Berg of Fredrikson and Byron. Robert Hare and Patty Napier of Burnet Realty were also representatives of the property. Mabusth explained this application is for a subdivision of the property along previously platted lot lines that were legally combined. Since this is a 5 acre zoning district, this 9.9 acre parcel would never be brought before the City again tor subdivision. The City will ask for dedication of road rights-of-way and a flowage and conservation easement over the designated wetland. Easements and dedications for the remaining 22 acre parcel will be considered at a later time. The total dedication of 66' of right-of-way road easement of Watertown Road at one section creates an unbuildable triangular piece of property to the south which could either be legally combined with the homestead parcel on the northern side of the road or combined with adjacent properties on the southern side of Watertown Road. Staff reviewed the 1989 ordinance amendment that dealt with oversized accessory structures. At the time the larger riding arena and indoor bam were constructed, there were no limits on the size or number of oversized accessory structures on a property. In 1989, the two stmctures became non- conforming with the oversized accessory stmcture ordinance amendment, not as a result of the current subdivision application. A major issue for the review of this 9.9 acre parcel (8.41 dry buildable acres) is the 6 horse allowance per current code. What other use could be allowed for these oversized accessory structures if not the keeping of horses? When the Kokeshes purchased the 9.9 acre property in 1968, the code stated that a stock farm had to have 10 acres and Section 10.03 would allow an increase of 2." V .‘•itJ'out the need for a conditional use permit review. In 1985, variances were granted for the ev'tr cial use of the property and a conditional use permit was granted for the riding stable and instruction. In 1975 there were 20 horses and in 1985 there were 25 horses, which was legal as the Kokeshes owned 31.2 contiguous acres. Based on 29 dry buildable acres, the code would have allowed 27 horses. The 1968, 1975 and current code are basically the same as for the classifying of a farm at 10 acres. The applicant is looking for direction regarding the keeping of horses on the property. The two oversized accessory structures can legally remain.