Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 12 of 30  <br />  <br />McGrann asked if the setback lines would still hold. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission has not had any discussion on the setbacks such that if the <br />neighbor can see the shoreline on the applicants’ property, whether that should be preserved. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated this is a unique situation. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if it is contemplated by the height restriction. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the view would clearly be altered. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the height restriction does not necessarily contemplate this type of situation, but the current <br />situation does exist and is a factor. <br /> <br />Morgan Cavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law, stated he represents the applicants. Cavanaugh stated the lawsuit <br />that was brought in December of last year is an active lawsuit and basically challenges the legality of the <br />Special Lot Combination Agreements, specifically with regard to the fact that they provide specific <br />restrictive covenants. Cavanaugh stated he engaged in discussions with the City Attorney in an attempt to <br />find a resolution to the situation and the City Attorney indicated there was interest on the part of the City <br />in resolving this situation. <br /> <br />Cavanaugh stated if the Special Lot Combination Agreement is terminated and the average lakeshore <br />setback issue is denied, the applicants are in the position of now having two separate lots, with a dock on <br />one lot. The purpose of the Special Lot Combination Agreement initially was to allow the dock to remain <br />without an accessory structure. The City has basically said that the applicants would need to apply for the <br />variances and the City Council would then review those. Cavanaugh stated the variances would be <br />addressed after the Special Lot Combination Agreement was terminated. Cavanaugh indicated they are <br />kind of in the limbo of applying for the variances while the Special Lot Combination Agreement is still in <br />effect. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the property owners knew that the Special Lot Combination Agreement was in effect <br />at the time they purchased it. <br /> <br />Cavanaugh indicated they did. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked if they knew it was an unbuildable lot at the time they bought it. <br /> <br />Cavanaugh indicated that is correct and that the lawsuit relates to whether that is legal. <br /> <br />Schwingler noted the previous property owner accepted that Special Lot Combination. <br /> <br />Mrs. Alness noted the law has changed regarding 50-foot properties. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted state law has changed but the City’s regulations have not. Thiesse asked if the Planning <br />Commission is being asked to go through this review as though the lawsuit does not exist. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 12 of 30]