02-23-1978 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR P�IEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 23 , 1978 Page 15 SUBDIVISION 3024 Casco Point Road (Continued) Pursuant to your offer, I reviewed the file at the Orono City offices on this "subdivision" yesterday. I note that N�r. Braun' s "simple subdivision" was first approved by the Orono Planning Co�r�rnission March 17, 1975, and by the Orono City Council ?�arch 25, 1975 . The only condition on that approval reflected in the m�nutes is "that another water unit charge be added for the approved building site. " I assume this approval �tias given pursuant to the "exception" provisions in Orono' s platting ordinance (§39 . 021) . For reasons not clear to me, when plats were submitted to Orono in 1976 this "lot split" was aescribed as a "subdivision" and the ma-tter was again submitted -to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Both bodies approved the "subdivision" (the Planning Commission on June 21, 1976, and the Council on June 28, 1976) with the only reservation being review of a Ci�ty Engineer' s report on possible drainage problems and payment of the park dedication fee. I see no evidence in the file that the City Engineer ever made such a report, and I note that no where does a -time limitation attach to the City' s approval. . As you know, when tender of the park dedication fee was � made this fall, Orono apparently took the position that its prior approvals had lapsed and that it could begin a de novo review of this matter. I question whether Orono has that right, since it has -twice approved this "subdivision" with only minor, and very specific reservations. I suggest �that only questions about drainage, . and not a full-dress review, ought to be properly considered at this point. I alsb note that Orono' s files indicate that a proposed " . drainage plan was received by the Orono staff January 24, 1978: As far as I know, no response has been made to that proposal and no response appears in the Orono file. Obviously it makes little sense - for us to prepare plats and drainage easements based upon that pro- posed plan if the City Engineer views the plan as inadequate or defective. I can only assume that the City Engineer has no objections to the proposal and will have the necessary materials drawn up accordingly. Should my assumption not be accurate, or should the City Engineer not yet have consiclered this matter, please advise me promptly. ' Your review of the file herein also disclosed, I am sure, the fact that Mr. Plowman aoplied for a building permit on his lot in October, 1976. Apparently the lack of "final subdivision approval" prevented issuance of a permit, although the City' s various inspection trips to the site make it appear that the City' s response was ambiguous. In any event, Mr. Plowman obviously intends to build upon his lot and expects that the City will issue the necessary permits upon approval of the " subdivision. " End of letter (Continued)