02-22-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22,1995 i Berg stated that if only 6 horses were allowed on this property, the improvements made to the property do not function for a use that small He thought this may be considered a taking of the property Smith asked if there was an opportunity to increase the acreage to 10 acres. Berg responded there was a practical problem with bank mortgages for 10+ acre parcels Pfct''r:on asked how many other properties in Orono have 9 9 acres with 27 horses. Napier respciiaed that right across the street there was a 4.S acre parcel with 18 horses on it. Mabusth responded she would have this reviewed. Napier noted that there were eight parcels with horses from the 3700 block up to 4100 Watertown Road She commented that the profile of a typical buyer would be someone who maintains horses indoors with some rotations outside There are 17 stalls in this state-of-the-art bam Some of the stalls also have partitions which have been removed allowing space for 20 horses. Mabusth asked Planning Commission members if they felt the horse use at an intense level was more like a non-conforming use and should be considered as a conditional use permit. Members agreed. There were no comments from the public. Smith asked if there was any precedence in other areas of the City. Mabusth thought there were some area variances for the keeping of horses on 2-3 acre parcels. Peterson noted that at the time of the sale of a property, the grandfather rule does not apply. Berg responded that the oversized structures became non-conforming in 1989 and are being allowed to remain. Jabbour asked how many horses had been kept on the property over the last 24 months. Napier responded that because the Kokeshes are moving their business to Florida, there have been 10-12 horses on the property. Jabbour indicated that if a non-conforming use was moving from a legal conforming use to a legal non-conforming use and the use was discontinued for a maximum of 12 months, the use could not be continued. Jabbour also asked about the driveway for the northern lot. Mabusth explained that the review was not being done at this time on that parcel because this application is only for a division along an existing lot line. Berg did not feel that the historic use of the property should be affected if there were fewer horses on the property at one time than another. Mabusth explained that clearly the code addresses the number of animal units allowed based on area. Because this property is under consideration for a subdivision, the City looks at it differently. The City recognizes there is a problem with the oversized accessory structures. In the 1989 code amendment, there was nothing that stated the oversized structures would have to be removed. However, if there were any structural repairs it would have to be brought before the Council as a vanance.