Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Replat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moraine Planning Commission approves replat to combine seven commercial lots
Summary
The Moraine Planning Commission unanimously approved case SDash01Dash2026 on July 21, 2026, allowing seven general‑business lots to be combined into a single 0.72‑acre parcel to eliminate internal lot lines and resolve nonconforming conditions.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Replat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
On July 21, 2026 the Moraine Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve case SDash01Dash2026, a request to combine seven existing general‑business lots into a single parcel totaling approximately 0.72 acres.
Planning staff member Miss Schroeder presented the application, saying the request was filed by Thomas Marsh of McDougall Marsh on behalf of property owner Robert Rob Fickert. "The purpose of the replat is simply to eliminate those internal lot lines so that each building is located entirely on a single parcel," Miss Schroeder said, explaining that two commercial buildings currently cross one or more lot lines and that the replat would resolve those nonconforming conditions.
Miss Schroeder told commissioners the surrounding area is primarily commercial and that the city's comprehensive plan identifies the area for current and future commercial use; staff reviewed the request under subdivision standards and chapters referenced in the Moraine zoning code and found it consistent with applicable requirements. A technical review committee meeting was held on June 24, and staff recommended approval as submitted.
Commission members had no substantive questions and a motion to approve the replat passed on a unanimous vote. The roll‑call tally recorded the following votes: Mr. Watts — yes; Mrs. Delph — yes; Mr. Noel — yes; Mrs. Long — yes; Mr. Howard — yes.
The approval removes internal lot lines that created the nonconforming status for the buildings; no additional conditions were placed on the approval. The planning commission did not set a subsequent date for additional review, and the item was closed after the vote.

