Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> JULY 17, 2000 <br /> • <br /> (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) <br /> Stoddard stated Lot 1 needs to conform with the existing City Codes. <br /> Graham suggested a condition be placed on the subdivision that upon sale of the lot, the lot must <br /> be developed within a certain period of time. <br /> Smith inquired whether the City has allowed an accessory structure to remain on a lot without a <br /> principal structure in the past. <br /> Gaffron stated a situation did exist on North Arm Drive where a swimming pool remained for <br /> three or four years and eventually became a problem. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any other <br /> situation similar to this. <br /> Lindquist stated in his view the Applicant should perhaps be given a year to a year and a half in <br /> which to make a decision on what to do with Lot 1 and the storage building. <br /> Weinberger inquired whether a similar situation occurred on Little Orchard Road where the barn <br /> was permitted to remain without an existing structure. <br /> Gaffron stated it is his recollection the property owner was given approximately a year in which <br /> the barn could remain on the lot without a principal structure, but that the owner was in the process <br /> • of developing that land. Gaffron stated he does not have any major concerns with the <br /> storage building remaining on the lot without a principal structure provided ownership of both lots <br /> does not change. Gaffron stated there would need to be a covenant on Lot 1 filed with the <br /> City once the lot is sold indicating the property needs to be developed within a certain period of <br /> time or the shed needs to be removed. <br /> Graham stated he would be agreeable with that. <br /> Smith inquired whether that would apply if ownership of either lot changes. <br /> Gaffron stated both lots would need to remain in common ownership, and as soon as ownership of <br /> one lot changes, the covenant would become effective. <br /> Nygard stated another trigger would be construction on Lot I. <br /> Lindquist commented in his view the Planning Commission has been clear on this in the past and <br /> they should continue to follow past practices and only allow the shed to remain for a limited period <br /> of time if the property is not developed. <br /> Graham stated a covenant could contain whatever condition the Planning Commission requested <br /> and would show up in the title opinion letter at the time of final plat approval. <br /> Lindquist stated it would be his preference that a limited period of time be granted for the shed to <br /> • remain. <br /> PAGE 11 <br />