Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 20, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#12) #03-2958 JUDSON DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, Continued <br /> Waataja gave a brief background to the history of this parcel noting that the previous <br /> owners of this lot received a variance which allowed the barn to exist on the lot absent the <br /> principal building. The developer of the subdivision acted on behalf of the owners in the <br /> variance request in an effort to temporarily allow the building while the property was being <br /> marketed. The variance allowed the building to be oversized and conditioned that the <br /> building be moved to the rear of the lot where it would be conforming once a principal <br /> structure was constructed. The building was never moved to this location and therefore the <br /> variance became null and void. The lot was never developed and the current applicant, <br /> who is a new owner and who resides on the adjacent property to the immediate west, is <br /> now requesting that the variance be renewed so he can move the building as noted on the <br /> site plan and Resolution#4297. <br /> Waataja identified several issues that relate to the original approval which needed to be <br /> reviewed to determine whether a renewal variance should be approved. The issues were as <br /> follows: <br /> 1. The original variance was granted to the previous owners. Variances run with the <br /> property not the applicant. However, the approval was based entirely on the fact <br /> that a principal structure would be constructed on the lot in the near future. The <br /> resolution even re-defined what lot lines were considered side, rear, and front to <br /> clear up any confusion for when a principal building would be constructed. <br /> 2. Staff believes the current owner has no intention of selling the lot for development <br /> in the near future. The applicant has expressed his desire to keep the lot separate <br /> from his and no plans have been expressed that the lot is intended to be sold. <br /> 3. The barn, if moved to the location indicated on the site plan, would be conforming <br /> if the applicant combined the lot which contains his residence to the lot which <br /> contains the barn. The applicant has stated he does not want to combine the two <br /> lots. <br /> Based on the issues discussed above Waataja indicated that there were several options <br /> available that the Planning Commission should review prior to making a recommendation. <br /> Option 1: Because the original variance approval was based on a dwelling being <br /> constructed and that is not the applicant's current intention, if the applicant <br /> wishes to keep the barn, require that the lots be combined and the barn be <br /> moved to the location indicated on the site plan because its current location <br /> is non-conforming with respect to setbacks. <br /> Option 2: If the applicant does not want to combine the lots, then require that the barn <br /> be removed and the lot remains vacant until it is sold for development. <br /> Page 25 of 29 <br />