09-08-2014 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 25 (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Thieroff stated the ordinance on the overhead is important because Staff indicated there is only one toe and it is the first toe you come to from the lake. Thieroff noted the City’s ordinance defines toe to say the lower point of a 50-foot segment. The ordinance does not the first 50-foot segment but any 50-foot segment. Thieroff stated if you calculated the toe where they have said it should be there is a bluff here. Thieroff stated he understands the City may like to resolve the dispute by granting the variance, but that it may result in other legal disputes if this development is allowed to go forward since it is not authorized by law. Bremer stated she would like to hear from the City Attorney on whether or not this would be considered a subdivision. Mattick stated the City Council is well aware that this lot is encumbered by a Special Lot Combination Agreement as is the Meerkins lot. Mattick stated one of the reasons the Special Lot Combination Agreement was put in place for both lots is that these are vacant lots that are considered riparian lots and that people who want to put in a dock have been prohibited in the past since that is considered a structure without a primary structure. Mattick stated in order to allow a dock on a vacant riparian lot, the City created a Special Lot Combination Agreement that treated them functionally as one lot but did not merge them as one PID. Mattick stated he understands the attorney’s position regarding the subdivision and that he takes no issue with the law in terms of what is allowed or not allowed as it relates to a subdivision, but that what is being proposed by the applicants is not a subdivision. Mattick stated this is an agreement that allowed two lots to be put together in order to have a dock and not a document that merged those two PIDs together. Mattick indicated he does not agree with the analysis that this amounts to a subdivision and that he understands the Council disagrees with that interpretation as well. McMillan stated it is not considered one whole piece of land or contiguous. Mattick stated the Alness’s non-riparian lot is one back and three over and are not hooked together by anything other than a Special Lot Combination Agreement. McMillan asked what Staff’s feeling is on the bluff. Gaffron stated the neighbor’s attorney suggests that the code could be interpreted to establish any number of toes of a bluff. From a practical standpoint, the code would be impossible to enforce if there were multiple toes. Gaffron stated Staff has been consistent over the past 20 years using the lowest point that can be defined as toe rather than any one of many potential interim points as the toe. From a practical and logical standpoint, Staff feels there is one toe and not multiple toes. The analysis that Staff has done defines the lowest point as the toe, which determines whether the bluff meets the criteria. McMillan asked if a 50-foot segment is what is included in the toe.