03-20-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 • ( #1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth verifies that they have indeed been combined, then the Planning Commission would have to determine the size of the lots for subdivision and how access would be provided. Rowlette questioned whether lot 3 should be treated as an already designated lot or not. Mr. Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property. He reported that it was old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed. Schroeder responded that this application does not apply to the boathouse but did ask the applicant what his plans were for the future of the boathouse. Mr. Cloutier reported that he wished to rehabilitate the boathouse. He had installed a 3- season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had thought he had been given verbal approval to do so by the building inspector at that time. Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a s }ngle story boathouse only. Rowlette informed the applicant of the City's desire to have no structures in t�e 0 -75' zone. If the boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would be more than 50% of the value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No repairs can be done without a pem*. Rowlette said she would like to have the city attorney's opinion on whether there would be r any rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combined. Mabusth responded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the property. Lindquist agreed that any further division of lots 3 and 4, once lot 1 was approved for subdivision, would have to follow the current codes. Nolan reiterated to the applicant that if he desires any future division of the lots, the commission needs to see the plan at this time. Cloutier responded that he did not wish to be concerned with future division at this time, only the one lot as presented. Schroeder emphasized that the present plan for lot 1 could mean that lot 3 would not be able to be subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would be subject to current standards. The commission members suggested to the applicant that he come back before the commission with an amended application with plans for all the lots. Mabusth said, once again, that the subdivision could be done with a simple metes and bounds subdivision. Mabusth put the applicant on notice that any future subdivision would need a new plat due to the access issue. The current code may not allow the division of lots 3 and 4 at a later date. If the applicant's intentions are anything other than the two lot subdivision as stated in the applicant, the intentions of the applicant needed to be known at this time. The applicant said he had no plans at this time but that his children said they would like to see a future division of lots 3 and 4, therefore, requested tabling of the application. Mabusth said the property would have to be replatted.