01-16-1990 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 4 of 5 Options of Action - 1. Denial. If denied, you may base your recommendation on one or more of the following findings: A) If applicants had followed the appropriate procedure and obtained the required building permit, the applicants would have been advised of the status of the structure. Even if the structure was not scheduled for required removal back in 1975, certainly the repair of the structure would have required a land use review. B) The City finds the subject structure and similar structures to be in complete conflict with the zoning regulations for lakeshore residential development, the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and the regulations of the State Department of Natural Resources. C) All residents who have properties that contain structures within the 0-75' setback must seek approval from the City before repairs can be made to said structure. The City would question any property owner when it appears obvious that such a structure had received major renovation and remodeling. D) The professional background of both applicants suggests a certain level of experience and/or knowledge that a building p®nnit would have been required for the improvements to both structures. A condition of the denial would be that the structure be removed by mid-spring of 1990. 2. Approval. If approved the Planning Commission may consider one or more of the fc^.lowing findings: A) The City staff failed to implement the Council's original directive to remove the subject structure. B) The chain of title failed to reveal the status of the structure and the directives of the Orono Council in 1975. C) The previous owner, Mr. Larson, may have never known of the exact status of the boat house structure. Mr. Larson appeared to make minimal use of the structure and certainly did minimal upkeep.