10-14-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 " 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) The second question raised is whether it is true that the City has been allowing other 50-foot lakeshore lots to be built on and how many of these are a result of the statute changes. Gaffron indicated there are very few vacant substandard lakeshore lots that exist in Orono. The vast majority of new homes built on small lakeshore lots are replacing an existing home that already occupied the site. In the period from January 1, 2000,through September 30,2013,the City has issued 385 permits for new single-family homes. Of these, 242 were for replacement homes and 1432 were for new homes on previously vacant lots. Of the 143 new homes on previously vacant lots, only five were on lakeshore lots. The range in sizes of these five previously vacant lots was 0.62 acres to 2.0 acres in area and 65 feet to 300 feet in width. There have been no permits issued for new home construction on previously vacant lakeshore lots as small as the applicants' lot in the past 13-plus years. As the Council is aware, a number of nonconforming non-lakeshore lots within the past two years have had to be allowed buildability due to the statute changes. Staff does anticipate a very small number of existing vacant lakeshore lots will become buildable due to the statute changes but has not attempted to enumerate those. The third question raised was whether the applicants could build on the lakeshore lot if they removed their existing home on the off-lake parcel with the Special Lot Combination agreement remaining in effect. Gaffron stated this would require that the terms of the Special Lot Combination agreement be revised,as the off-lake parcel is currently considered in the agreement as the primary parcel which may be used for any allowed principal permitted uses, while the lake parcel is accessory to the off-lake parcel and has specified conditions as to what can occur on it. A fourth question raised by the applicants' attorney is whether there are other Special Lot Combination agreements in effect and, if so, have any of them been later extinguished. At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff indicated there may be as many as a dozen such agreements in effect, and that few, if any, are similar since most connect lake parcels to non-lake parcels that are directly across from each other. The applicants have requested a listing of the Special Lot Combination agreements that currently exist. Staff does not specifically track these agreements and has had to rely on a computer file search as well as Staff's collective memory to create such a list. Gaffron stated in researching City records, it appears there have been no situations exactly like that of the applicants. Staff found just a handful of Special Lot Combinations, and of these, only two are lakeshore situations pertinent to attaching a lakeshore parcel to an inland parcel. In both cases the lake parcel was directly across the road from the residence(s)it served. In one of those situations,the lakeshore parcel was actually a part of the inland parcel until platting occurred. Gaffron noted the chart included in Staff's report outlines the various Special Lot Combination Agreements that Staff is aware of. Page 8 of 23