Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,October 14,2013 � <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARM DRIVE—SUBDIVISION, <br /> Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated the Council, if asked to do that,would have some hard decisions to make on why they <br /> would allow separated parcels to be combined. Gaffron stated this is an unusual situation and the Council <br /> allowed a Special Lot Combination in order to allow a dock on the lakeshore lot. <br /> McMillan commented the property is almost like the applicant's own personal outlot. McMillan noted <br /> the City has tended to be very restrictive of outlots,and that while there are a few that have happened in <br /> Orono for various reasons, it is generally not the policy of Orono to allow personal outlots. The Special <br /> Lot Combination agreement gave the property owner the advantage of gaining lake access but it was an <br /> unbuildable parcel. McMillan stated allowing a dock on the parcel enabled the properly owner to get <br /> some value from the property. <br /> Printup asked if allowing the subdivision in this situation would be precedent setting. <br /> Mattick stated in his opinion it does not set a precedent and that by saying it would set a precedent <br /> suggests that the situation will come up again. Mattick noted the two lots are not abutting or directly <br /> across from each other and that he is not aware of any other situations like this. <br /> Morgan Kavanaugh,Attorney-at-Law representing the applicants, stated there has been a lot of time put <br /> in by Staff reviewing this matter and that he has submitted three letters previously in response to Staff's <br /> arguments. Kavanaugh indicated he does not want to spend a lot of time revisiting all that. <br /> Kavanaugh stated the primary issue is the intent of the agreement and that he respectfully disagrees with <br /> the City Attorney that the intent is not crystal clear. In the 2001 application, Paragraph 11 of the <br /> resolution says Lot 7 could be continued to be used for private dock purposes and on Page 6 it states to <br /> allow for lake access. In addition,the Planning Commission minutes reflect that the applicant at the time <br /> stated that the main purpose for purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. If she <br /> could not do that, she wanted to be able to keep her dock. The City Council minutes from 2001 <br /> specifically states that Staff commented to have a dock would require a variance and the motion was to <br /> specifically allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated Page 12 reflects that the agreement and the use of the <br /> Special Lot Combination Agreement it is very appropriate to allow a dock. <br /> Kavanaugh stated if you look at the facts and circumstances of the 2001 application, it was to allow a <br /> dock and there is nothing in the record reflecting that the City wanted to bar development on the lot for all <br /> time. <br /> Kavanaugh noted that Planner Gaffron acknowledges in his report that the agreement is boilerplate <br /> language. To say that it was specifically and purposely drafted for this situation is not entirely true. If <br /> you look at the language itself, it states that the terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, <br /> amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in <br /> part only upon application by Grantor to Grantee for approval of a subdivision in accordance with the <br /> platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application. Kavanaugh noted it does not say that it <br /> has to meet the minimum lot requirements. <br /> Page 12 of 23 <br />