Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />• August 18, 1993 <br />Schroeder asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shoreland <br />Regulations and questioned if a recommendation should be made to return to previous <br />regulations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be <br />reviewed anyway because the developer would bring the subdivision application to the Planning <br />Commission. Gaffron asked if flag lots should be an allowed use that does not require a <br />variance or a use that needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes. <br />Schroeder would prefer the variance approach. Rowlette feels that if the rules were well <br />written, there would be less need to review every detail and less bureaucracy. <br />Mabusth asked about the problem of flag lots and the lot not meeting the width at the cul- <br />de -sac. There may need to be a minimum width set for such lots. Gaffron noted that most cul- <br />de -sac lots require a variance. He also pointed out that these are lakeshore lots and under the <br />current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variance <br />should be required. If it makes sense, the flag lot would be approved. Rowlette would still like <br />to see an attempt made to write a strict ordinance regarding flag lots. For example, only a <br />certain percentage of flag lots would be allowed with a new subdivision of more than two lots. <br />Nolan would still lean toward the variance procedure because of the unique topographies in <br />Orono, however, he would like to see a possible ordinance. Gaffron asked members to attempt <br />to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try to draft an ordinance. <br />Schroeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lot at <br />• the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be permitted, the <br />length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (buffer), and does the buffer need <br />to be paved? gravel? or dust? <br />Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron asked for a list of <br />conditions from members of the Planning Commission so that he can work with them. This <br />could then be discussed at a later meeting. <br />Schroeder asked that the Planning Commission focus on the change in the way <br />calculations are done for lot width and the need for variances relative to what was done before <br />and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety day moratorium, <br />Schroeder would recommend reverting to the pre- existing condition of measuring at the street <br />and at the lake because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed. <br />The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 20, 1993. Mabusth <br />asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was determined that <br />morning meetings do not provide enough time to accomplish recommendations so an evening <br />meeting at 6:30 p.m. would be more productive. <br />Members thought clarification of what the Council really wanted the Planning <br />Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots /outlots was necessary and if non- <br />lakeshore flag lots should also be considered. The same concerns are raised for both types of <br />5 <br />