08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC IIEARINC; ON FLAG LOT LSSUFS August 18, 1993 Sdirocdcr asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shoreland Regulations and questioned if a recommendation should be made to return to previous regulations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be reviewed anyway because the developer would bring the subdivision application to the Planning Commission. Gaffron asked if flag lots should be an allowed use that does not icquire a variance or a use that needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes. Schroeder would prefer the variance approach. Rowlette feels that if the rules Nvere well written, there would be less need to review every detail and less bureaucracy. Mabusth asked about the problem of flag lots and the lot not meeting the width at the cul- de-sac. There may need to be a minimum width set for such lots. Gaffron noted that most cul- de-sac lots require a variance. He also pointed out that these are lakeshore lots and under the current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variance should be required. If it makes .sense, the flag lot would be approved. Rowlette would still like to see an attempt made to write a strict ordinance regarding flag lots. For example, only a certain percentage of flag lots would be allowed with a new subdivision of more than two lots. Nolan would still lean toward the variance procedure because of the unique topographies in Orono, however, he would like to see a possible ordinance. Gaffron asked members to attempt to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try to draft an ordinance. Schroeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lot at the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be permitted, the length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (buffer), and does the buffer need to paved? gravel? or dust? Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron asked for a list ol conditions from members of the Planning Commission so that he can w'ork with them. This could then be discussed at a later meeting. Schroeder asked that the Planning Commission focus on the change in the way calculations arc done for lot width and the need for variances relative to what w'as done before and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety day moratorium, Schroeder would recommend reverting to the pre-existing condition of measuring at the street and at the lake because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 20, 1993. Mabusth asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was determined that morning meetings do not provide enough time to accomplish recommendations so an evening meeting at 6:30 p.m. would be more productive. Members thought clarification of what the Council really wanted the Planning Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots/outlots was necessary and if non- lakeshore flag lots should also be considered. The same concerns are raised for both types ot