Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTSING COMNflSSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 <br />(#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) <br />If the lots have been combined, which Mabusth verifies that they hav^ indeed b^ <br />combined, then the Planning Commiaaion would have to detemune the size of the lots for <br />subdivision and how access would be provided, Rowiette questioned whether lot a should <br />treated as an already designated lot or not. <br />Mr Paurus asked about the boathouse located on the property. He repotted that « '>'«* <br />old and unsafe and needs to either be repaired or removed, Schroeder respond^ that this <br />application does no. apply to the boathouse but did ask the applies, what «« <br />for the future of the boathouse. Mr Cloutier reported that te wished to rehabOitate the <br />boathouse He had installed a 3-season porch on top of the boathouse and said he had <br />thought he had been giver, verbal approval to do so by the building inspector a. that nme. <br />Mabusth said that the permit on file was given for a single story boathouse only. <br />Rowiette informed the applicant of the City’s desire to have .» sm.«u«s « <br />zone If die boathouse is to be repaired, and the cost would \k more than 50-/. of tte <br />value of the boathouse at the time of the 1975 code, the boathouse must be removed. No <br />repairs C3n be done v^ithout 21 pemiit. <br />Rowiette said she would like to have the city attorney’s opinion on whethw ttoe would be <br />anv rights grandfathered to the property if it had been legally combmed Mabus* <br />remolded to the negative saying that the current code would apply to the <br />L^quUt agreed rhat any further division of lots 3 and 4. once lot 1 was approved for <br />subdivision, would have to foUow the current codes. <br />Nolan reiterated to the appUcant that if he desires any future di^n of I®'*' <br />conunission needs to see the plan a. this time. Clouner responded that ‘>0 <br />be concerned wiUi future division at this time, only the one >ot as <br />emphasized that the present plan for lot I could mean that lot 3 would <br />subdivided in the future because of the issue of access and would subject “ <br />standards. The commission members suggested to the awheant th« 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 metes and <br />bounds subdivision. Mabusth put the appUcant on notice that My fimire M^viao <br />v Tu M need a new plat due to the access issue The cunem code may not afiow the <br />division of lots 3 Md 4 at a later date. If the applicMt ’s intemions ue Mythmg <br />the two lot subdivision as stated in the appUcMt, the intenUons of the appUcMt needed to <br />be known at this time. <br />The appUcant said he had no plans at this time but that his children s^d 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 rcplatted.