Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 21,2001 <br /> (#01-2675 DONNA LILE,CONTINUED) <br /> towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan <br /> demonstrating how they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. <br /> Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for <br /> applications in the future. <br /> Gaffron stated most lots of this size currently have a house erected on the property or have been <br /> considered unbuildable for years. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could see similar lots in <br /> the future when those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. <br /> Stoddard stated he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving an application where <br /> there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only 50 feet wide where 140 feet is <br /> required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a dock for the lakeshore lot. <br /> Kluth inquired how a prospective buyer might become aware that the lot has been deemed <br /> unbuildable. Kluth noted that decision by the Council is not filed with the County. <br /> Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s,the City Council did not file variance approvals or denials. <br /> Since that time the City has filed them on the chain on title. The property owner could find out that <br /> information by asking the City to review that file. <br /> Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the past <br /> with no sewer. <br /> Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property,there was no unit <br /> charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildable at the <br /> time the sewer was installed,the City more than likely would not have assessed them the 50 foot <br /> frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the Applicant would <br /> owe the updated unit and plant charge. <br /> Smith inquired if a small cabin had existed on this lot at the time sewer was installed in this area, how <br /> that property would have been treated. <br /> Gaffron stated they would have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with a unit <br /> charge and a plant charge. <br /> Stoddard inquired whether there is a dock currently on the lakeshore lot. <br /> Roesler stated the dock is not legal. Roesler stated her main purpose in purchasing the property was <br /> to construct a residence on the lot. <br /> Stoddard inquired if the first part of the application were tabled and the second part approved,whether <br /> the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first part of the application with the City <br /> Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of <br /> this application. <br /> PAGE 13 <br />