10-28-2013 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 14, 2013 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Mattick stated he has no doubt the prior property owner came to the City and asked what it would take to put in a dock, to which the City said that the two lots must be combined. In terms of whether this is boiler plate or language drafted specifically for the situation is irrelevant. It is an agreement that has been entered into and the terms of the agreement control. Mattick noted the agreement talks at the top about a special lot combination agreement, which is the principle behind the document. It is to combine these two lots. When you read through the agreement, you see phrases such as, shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons and used or developed in common by the grantor as if in fact they were one parcel, which is what the agreement says and is the intent of the agreement. Mattick stated with that said, the Special Lot Combination is an agreement, which means if circumstances change and the parties come to a mutual understanding, the agreement can be amended. Mattick stated the agreement says what it says and combines these two lots and keeps them in common ownership. Under the City’s regulations, a person cannot build two houses on one lot. Mattick stated if there are other reasons why the Council feels it would be appropriate to abandon or modify the agreement, that would be an option but the access would need to be discussed. Staff has laid out the history for why there has not been development on that lot in the past. State law, as it relates to nonconforming lots, still requires minimum lot size, and this lot is not close to that. Levang stated she has examined the agreement a number of times and has also visited the properties. Levang stated the agreement combines Parcels A and B into one lot and that there is a process for extinguishing that, which is the subdivision process, but the applicants do not meet the guidelines to approve a subdivision. Levang stated based on that, her position would be to deny the application. Anderson stated she is wrestling with quite a few obstacles on this application. While it is an entirely unique situation, the lot was not buildable at the time of the combination, which is part of the reason why the lots were combined. Anderson noted the applicants did purchase the property knowing that this agreement went with the property a dozen years ago and it was not something new. In addition, this is not an existing lot of record and it will create a new lot that will be nonconforming. Anderson indicated she is wrestling with the fact that the subdivision process would create a nonconforming lot and it would not meet any of the codes to be a buildable lot, which is clearly stated in the agreement. Printup stated he sees it that you are subdividing something that is physically together only on paper per the contract. Printup indicated he reads the agreement as saying this is special but that it is a weird situation, which is the hardest issue he has with it. Printup stated the agreement is telling him two plus two equals five because it says so on paper but that in his view it is two separate lots. Mattick stated it is unique to have combined two lots that are not adjoining or across the street. Mattick indicated he has not seen this situation before. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 14 of 23]