Laserfiche WebLink
eet <br />Meetin <br />32 P.M. <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1980 - PAGE 2 <br />« f <br />Hannah moved to recommend approval of the two lot <br />plat contingent upon the following: <br />1. Flowage and conservation easement taken over <br />the designated wetlands. <br />2. Lot 2 to grant a private driveway and utility <br />easement to Lot 1. <br />3. Septic installation shall conform to the On-Site <br />Systems Manager's report and septic design to <br />conform with the consultant's recommendation. <br />4. Payment of a park fee for Lot 2 of $200. <br />Motion seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays <br />Motion passed unanimously. <br />(0) <br />JOHN BROOKS <br />795 No, Ferndale Rd. <br />SUBDIVISION (Cont.) <br />(#551) <br />>rd Rd. <br />aSION <br />ndale R( <br />i m <br />Mr. Cloutier was present. He was given a copy of the <br />staff memo to read before ciny discussion commenced. <br />No public comments were heard. Mabusth stated the <br />applicant is not requesting additional deck, but <br />only screening. Hammerel asked the applicant if <br />he was aware that his building permit has expired; <br />Mr. Cloutier said that was what he had been informed. <br />Hammerel further brought to Mr. Cloutier's attention <br />that the Planning Commission may not legally grant <br />a variance to the standards set forth in the non- <br />conforming use sections of the code. McDonald stated <br />she felt this application was not increasing the <br />hardcover which already exists and that adding a <br />roof was not expanding the usage. During further <br />discussion, it was stated that use, not hardcover, <br />was the issue. At that time, Mr. Cloutier stated <br />he never intended to use the structure as a guesthouse; <br />he was more interested in finishing the screened porch. <br />Hammerel noted that he felt an interpretation of the <br />non-conforming use sections of the zoning code by the <br />City Attorney is necessary before th.e Planning Commission <br />can make a proper recommendation. <br />Wilson noted the difficulties in distinguishing between <br />non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures in <br />the zoning code when determining if this application <br />really involves an intensification. Does the addition <br />of a screened porch to a non-conforming structure <br />involve an intensification of a non-conforming use? <br />The Code seems to distinguish between the two. <br />Jabbour noted that at the June 9th meeting, he had asked <br />staff to interpret the non«-conforming use sections of the <br />Code. In review of that interpretation in the staff memo <br />dated 6-19-80, a screened porch and guest apartment is eui <br />expansion of a non-conforming use. This body cannot legally <br />grant a variance to this section. It should also be noted <br />for the record that installation of the utilities were done <br />without permits. <br />CORTLEN CLOUTIER <br />2480 Casco Pt. Road <br />VARIANCE & CONDITION. <br />USE PERMIT <br />(#555)