Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />August 18, 1993 <br />With the new Shoreland Ordinance. Hac lots that were never allowed because of a width <br />variance issue would now be allowed. There is concern by the Cfiuncil that they didn’t fully <br />understand what was happening with this issue when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted. <br />. Before passing the Ordinance, Council looked at cul-de-sac lots on the lake and found them to <br />usually require variances. They questioned if it was fair to require lakeshore lots to meet the <br />setback width at the shoreline, 75 ’ back, at the street setback and at the road. The Shoreland <br />Ordinance was adopted in February of 1992. <br />Gaffron stated that flag lots and cul-de-sacs could be detlned differently. He provided <br />several examples of situations that currently exist in Orono (see Exhibits from memo of July 28, <br />1993). One diagram illustrated that a driveway next to the house could be a problem, i.e. dust, <br />children playing, etc. Another example illustrated that under old regulations, a variance would <br />be needed while under the new Shoreland Regulations, no variance would be required. <br />Gaffron discussed information from the handout "Performance Zoning", i. e. permitted <br />design deviation, lot width and definition of flag lots/diagrams with examples of good and bad <br />lot development. Our code states that all lots created by a subdivision should be served by <br />interior roads for safety reasons. This handout also suggests that the flag pole portion of a lot <br />.should not receive credit for determining the average lot area. Rowlette questioned how this <br />would make the lot different from an outlot. Schroeder noted the end result would be the same, <br />its just how it is defined. This leaves three diflerent ways to de.scribe the same situation. The <br />Planning Commission will have to decide which is the best definition to use. Nolan noted there <br />will be non-conformance situations no matter which definition is chosen. <br />Schroeder thought flag lots are not necessarily bad. Rowlette agreed referring to <br />examples presented earlier. Smith asked if Gaffron had talked with other cities to see how they <br />address flag lots with shoreline. Schroeder noted some negatives of flag lots are the driveway <br />g ,..g past someone ’s house and a back lot next to someone ’s front yard. Rowlette felt there <br />could be opportunities in writing an ordinance that would address some of these issues such as <br />the kind and area of screening/buffering needed. <br />Nolan thinks there is a need to have flexibility in the Code, especially when topography <br />is considered. Gaffron responded that one way to add this flexibility is to make a flag lot a <br />variance every time. Rowlette noted that in a recent Watertown Road application iliere was a <br />lot of discussion about positioning the road. In that case, the driveway was an outlot. <br />Mabusth asked if the setback from a driveway easement is an issue that should be <br />addressed at this time and if the setback for an existing house and the closest part of an outlet <br />should be a front street setback rather tha i a side setback creating a larger buffer. Rowlette ard <br />Nolan were concerned about how the setbacks would at feet the property with the new house aiyt <br />wanted to assure sufficient buffering.