Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 15,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2803 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF CHERRY STUBBS, Continued) <br /> While the existing residence on Lot 2 does not meet the side yard setback from Outlot A, <br /> Bottenberg stated that, at this point, it has not been determined if the structure will remain or be <br /> removed. <br /> Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the six conditions outlined on <br /> page 3 of the zoning administrator's report dated July 11, 2002. Bottenberg added that the <br /> applicant has agreed to comply with all covenants. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Hawn stated that she would like closure that the existing outbuildings would be removed. <br /> Mabusth agreed, stating that at minimum the buildings on the lot line would be removed. She <br /> questioned who owned the structure to the east. <br /> Gronberg stated that, to his knowledge,the shed belonged to the adjoining property owner. He <br /> felt all of the out buildings would come down with the exception of the house and garage that <br /> might come down at some other time. He suggested that the applicant could come forward to the <br /> Council with some sort of timeline of when they would be removed. <br /> Hawn believed they would need to be removed prior to anyone building on the second lot. <br /> Gronberg noted that a single buyer may purchase both properties and live in the house for awhile <br /> as they build a new home on the back lot. <br /> Mabusth asked who was living on the property. <br /> Gronberg believed that Cherry Stubbs was the only resident, and was moving out. He inquired <br /> whether outlot A could be converted to lot 1 if they didn't want to share a driveway. <br /> Weinberger acknowledged that the house is recorded at a 50' setback to the platted outlot. <br /> Gaffron noted not under current code. <br /> Mabusth asked if the outlot stays in a shared ownership. <br /> Gaffron stated that outlot A can stay in common ownership, even if the current owner combined <br /> the two lots, the outlot would still function as the corridor requiring a 50' setback for new <br /> PAGE 13 of 36 <br />