Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1483 <br />January 12, 1990 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />^ meeting with the Vogts, it was clear that they <br />had no knowledge of the previous variance reviews that required <br />the removal of the structure. The previous owner had never <br />acknowledged to the Vogts that there was anv question concerning <br />the status of the subject structure. The structure is not used <br />house, contains no plumbing, no heating, is not <br />permanent habitation. The <br />claim that they use it as a 3-season porch and storage <br />level. The applicants also note that when they <br />purchased the property, there was nothing in the chain of title <br />that would reflect any problems with the structure. <br />4.1 doubt in staff's review of the files that it is <br />ā€®'' *ā€™®si<3ence in 1975. The applicants claim <br />should not be penalized for the negligence on the part <br />of the Orono zoning and inspection staff, it is also interestino <br />t^® in their memos in 1976, nor both <br />and Planning Commission members obviously visited the site <br />^evieS ic structure had been removed in the 1976review as there was no mention in the records. <br />notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors of <br />the public hearing, staff received visits and calls from the <br />neighbors. Many of the neighbors had lived there prior <br />Mr. Larson's residency. The neighbors confirm that <br />4. structure had existed on the property <br />prior to the construction of the new residence. Mr. Larson never <br />iS^'unmalnf-A^nni^^®/^^®^®-structure remained in an unmaintained deteriorating state until the purchase of the <br />in June of 1989 by the Vogts. Neighbors advised that at <br />^ll® certain improvements to the existing <br />hrt*l^®iT®® that they also made certain repairs to the <br />boat hous® structure. The City has no record of a building <br />issued for either the repair of the principal nor of <br />I'®'!,®® structure. If the required building <br />rfSTiE ^4T®®i" Obtained, the City staff would have been able to <br />^hl 7?. ^\® ^® ā€˜^®t®rmine the status of the structure within <br />sA?hA^v ff®uā–  repair to a structure within the 75*setback area would have required approval by the City. <br />contaitf//appreciate Planning Commission members <br />f^® ">®®ting if additional information is required for your review and determinations.