Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3160 Judson Dayton,Continued) <br /> Winston indicated it is Statute 462.358. <br /> Bremer stated that is how the statute reads,but that she would have expected this exception to be a part of <br /> City ordinances. Bremer indicated she would like to read the entire statute. <br /> Winston provided the entire statute to Commissioner Bremer. <br /> Bremer inquired whether there is a way to make it possible that the subdivision regulations are waived <br /> until one of the lots is sold or until such time that Mr.Dayton no longer owns either parcel. <br /> Leslie noted the applicant is not planning to move until the larger parcel is sold. <br /> Winston stated they would still like to sell Parcel 1 without a subdivision and keep the lot intact. Winston <br /> stated in the future it might not be practical to keep Parcel 1 intact in the future given economic reasons. <br /> Winston stated no development is being proposed for either lot at the present time and that it would be <br /> more appropriate to apply the subdivision regulations at the time a subdivision is proposed for Parcel 1. <br /> Leslie stated he has a concern that access to Parcel 2 would need to change and that the easement may not <br /> be how access to proposed Parcel 2 is given. Leslie commented he could envision a cul-de-sac in the <br /> center of Parcel 1. <br /> Leslie inquired what would happen to that easement if a different access is proposed and whether the <br /> easement would preclude any other reasonable subdivision of proposed Parcel 1. <br /> Winston stated the property owner would not be obligated to do anything with the driveway and it could <br /> remain as is or another driveway could be constructed. <br /> Leslie inquired whether that would be a negotiation with the future buyer. <br /> Winston stated that is probably what would happen and that in his view it is a logical way for the property <br /> to be developed. <br /> Leslie commented that it is likely that the two accesses would change in the future. Leslie stated he had a <br /> concern that Parcel 1 would be limited in some way if the easement were in place,but that it sounds like <br /> the future owner would not be precluded from doing something different with the access if he so chooses. <br /> Winston stated it is his opinion that the buyer of Parcel 1 could negotiate a different access with the <br /> applicant. <br /> Rahn questioned why these steps are being taken now prior to the land being sold. Rahn stated in his <br /> view the easement would affect a number of things and that there is the possibility that the easement will <br /> change in the future. <br /> PAGE 24 <br />