Laserfiche WebLink
^4 r <br />0 <br />^h MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 - PAGE 2 <br />mi. <br />Cortlen Cloutier, Wilbur Anderson (3555 Frederick) <br />and Michael Wallman (3565 Frederick) were present. <br />The applicant reviewed the new material submitted <br />at the meeting. In summary of his written statement, <br />he challenges the dates referring to scope of the <br />original permit and period of construction cited in <br />Scheller & Anderson affidavits. It is Cloutier's <br />position that the original permit covered the two <br />storied structure just in review of the costs of <br />materials back in 1971. <br />CORTLEN CLOUTIER <br />2480 Casco Point Road <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />& VARIANCE <br />(#555) <br />Anderson once again claims the original permit <br />covered a single story boathouse to be capped with <br />deck. The dates referenced in affidavits were <br />approximate estimates. <br />Wallman questioned the status of the existing building <br />within 75' setback area. If the second story was <br />constructed out of the scope of building permit, then <br />how can that portion be allowed to remain in <br />consideration of the legal non-conforming sections of <br />the Orono Code. <br />Jabbour questioned the assessed valuation of $1,200.00 <br />on the subject structure. It is obvious that the boat <br />house is worth more than $1,200 and how does the City <br />resolve this issue. Staff advised that with an <br />application of this type, an inspection of the non­ <br />conforming structure is part of the normal review. Staff <br />makes an evaluation as to the condition of the structure. <br />In some instances, applications have been denied <br />because of the rundown and unsafe condition and advised <br />removal. <br />Cloutier asked if he could move the structure, or build <br />a new guest house out of 75' setback area and maintain <br />boat house or single story structure. <br />Jabbour stated he would prefer the entire structure <br />being removed and asked staff if a newly located <br />guest house would be able to meet zoning standards. <br />Staff advised there was eunple area and width to satisfy <br />code. <br />Jabbour moved to table the application for no more than <br />a sixty day period in which the applicant must submit <br />a survey designating the location and setbacks of guest <br />house with the condition that second story of boat house <br />would be removed or moved to the new location. Motion <br />seconded by Adams. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion <br />passed unanimously. Planning Commission noted for the <br />record that: they would prefer removal of the entire <br />structure. <br />i