Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 <br />( #7 - #2276 Julie and Brent Walton - Continued) 0 <br />Goetten said she remembered the approval as being for two buildable lots noting one lot <br />is onlv 7.600 s.f in size. Jabbour confirmed that the annroval was for two lots with <br />removal of current buildings on the property. <br />Mr. Oberhauser arrived at the meeting at this time. He was asked what happened with <br />the prior application for subdivision. <br />Oberhauser said he sold the house which resulted in being unable to subdivide. The <br />house is on a separate lot. <br />Kelley questioned whether this will result in another house being located on the lot <br />between the existing lot with house and the Walton's. Van Zomeren indicated that a elan <br />has been submitted to Stag' for a house on that lot. <br />Jabbour explained the Oberhauser application and resulting action, which then results in <br />having three lots that are buildable. <br />Gaffron noted that caution needs to be exercised in saying what is buildable in that lot <br />coverage, lot area, and hardcover variances would be required on the substandard lot. <br />Goetten said the point of the prior approval was to not have three houses on these lots. • <br />Kelley questioned whether the City could refund the cost of sewer assessed with a rate of <br />return added resulting in sewer for house on Lot A and one sewer stub for Lots B and C. <br />Barrett said the question was difficult. He advised the Council to look at what it means <br />to have a sewer stub located there. Kelley reiterated that with the stub in the location, it <br />is considered buildable. If the stub was not there, it would not be buildable. <br />Jabbour suggested that what can be built on the lot is limited by the lot itself. Gaffron <br />concurred. <br />Kelley asked that this reasoning be taken one step further. If an agreement had been <br />reached with the current owner and variances were denied and with two lots on the <br />market but only allow what would meet the code, he questioned if this would force the <br />issue to have only two lots. <br />Jabbour said he thought lot area and lot width variances would have to be granted but not <br />hardcover or side setback variances. <br />Mr. Walton indicated that he was told that the plan for Lot B would not require any <br />hardcover variance, only lot area. <br />• <br />8 <br />