Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 20,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3024 City of Orono,CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment, Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated that is correct,but that it is likely there already are easements or cross-easements from <br /> one property owner to the other. Gaffron stated in the case of a large vehicle storage situation, it is <br /> likely that vehicle would be exiting the property from that shared driveway. <br /> Leslie inquired whether Subpoint g would allow a property owner who currently is storing a large <br /> vehicle to create a driveway if no agreement is reached with their neighbor. <br /> Gaffron stated that is right. <br /> Fritzler inquired whether a change in the property owner would also require a new agreement. <br /> Gaffron stated any time one of the owners of the property changes, a new agreement would be required <br /> unless the document is filed with the chain of title. Gaffron noted typically a conditional use continues <br /> with the property even after the property has been sold. <br /> Leslie questioned whether it would be possible to change Subpoint a to say that the current property <br /> owner has to establish that he or she was using this property to store 14,000 gross weight vehicles prior <br /> to January 1,2004,which means that effectively as soon as the property changed hands,the conditional <br /> use permit would be gone. <br /> Gaffron stated the intent,then, would be that the conditional use permit is to the owner and not to the <br /> property. <br /> Rahn noted one of the biggest issues the Planning Commission had with this issue was the fact that the <br /> conditional use permit would go with the property,which would be a logical method of eliminating that <br /> issue. <br /> Jurgens commented it is his understanding that conditional use permits go with the land and not the <br /> owner and that the new language restricting it to the owner may not be allowed. <br /> Gaffron indicated he does have some reservations about the use of what is intended to be a permanent <br /> approval in what the City would like to be a temporary situation. Gaffron inquired whether the term <br /> interim use would be a better way to deal with this,noting that state statutes do allow cities to adopt an <br /> interim use ordinance, which is defined as a temporary use of property until a particular date or until a <br /> particular event occurs or until the zoning regulations no longer allow it. Gaffron cited an example <br /> where the City considered giving property located along Highway 12 an interim use permit until the <br /> new highway corridor was constructed. Gaffron noted that the City never adopted the interim use <br /> ordinance since the need for it went away. Gaffron stated he is unsure at the present time whether an <br /> interim use ordinance is the best way to proceed in this situation. <br /> Gaffron indicated state statutes say the governing body may grant permission for an interim use of <br /> property if the use conforms to the zoning regulations, if they can determine that the use can be <br /> identified with certainty, and may grant permission for an interim use if permission of the use will not <br /> impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future, or <br /> the city can grant permission for interim use if the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body <br /> PAGE 5 <br />