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