Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri120,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff feels the provisions for splitting a duplex do not already exist because there are only a few duplex <br /> situations in Orono and there has never been a request for such a split previously. Gaffron indicated he <br /> was able to come up with two duplexes in the City. <br /> Berg indicated there is one on the end of Lydiard and one on Lydiard Circle. <br /> Gaffron stated the third one is located on North Shore Drive and was created within the past 20 years. <br /> Staff has concluded if the split were to happen,there should be a number of standards added to the code. <br /> Gaffron indicated he has provided a history of the code provisions for duplex use going back to 1968, <br /> when it was first addressed. <br /> The most recent action on this code provision occurred in 2010 as part of a reorganization of the <br /> Conditional Use section in each zoning district. At that time the term duplex was deleted and the term <br /> "two-family dwelling"was substituted. At one point there was a standard requirement that a duplex be <br /> allowed not only within 200 feet of any commercial district but within 250 feet of the B-3 district, which <br /> is the Lund's property. This was for a proposed duplex on the site of the fire station back in the 1940's to <br /> 1960's. That lot resulted in a specific code change that was never acted on in terms of developing a <br /> duplex. Eventually the B-3, 250-foot setback requirement or allowance was deleted. <br /> The text of the code originally included the phrase"one duplex may be located on a single lot,"which <br /> apparently carried through until at least 1997 when the provision for proximity to B-3 was added. It is <br /> unclear from discussions contained in Staff inemos and minutes whether the language was changed <br /> purposely, as dropping that phrase was apparently not discussed. Gaffron noted this duplex does meet the <br /> 250-foot setback. The intent remains clear, however, as the test still required for the two-family dwelling <br /> that the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial parceL In addition, it appears that the definition of <br /> duplex contained in the body of the text was also eliminated; although,the Shoreland Ordinance <br /> definition remains in effect. <br /> The original intent of the duplex ordinance apparently was to allow one building containing two <br /> independent dwelling units on a property,with the entire building and land owned by one person. The <br /> ability to own or sell just one of the dwelling units as a separate tax parcel requires approval of a <br /> subdivision. Orono's subdivision code does not contain provisions for a dedicated process to accomplish <br /> this type of split and allow ownership on each side of the duplex. Many other cities have added specific <br /> provisions to allow for individual ownership of units within a two-family dwelling. <br /> Gaffron indicated he has provided some sample ordinances within Staffls report. Common elements <br /> include: <br /> 1. The base lot must meet all requirements of the zoning district. <br /> 2. The unit lot created by splitting the base lot in two can have only one principal building, which <br /> would be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lot. <br /> 3. Permitted accessory uses in the underlying zoning district are acceptable if they meet all zoning <br /> requirements. <br /> 4. Property maintenance and party wall agreement will be required. One of the reasons that is <br /> critical relates to future maintenance of the duplex. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />