My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-1993 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
11-22-1993 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2019 12:59:35 PM
Creation date
4/29/2019 12:59:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />• HELD NOVEMBER 22, 1993 <br />( #4) #1860 ZELMA WKINNEY, 3599 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - CONT. <br />Hurr asked for clarification of the parking requirement. Mabusth stated the garage stalls could <br />be counted as well as other designated parking spaces. Mabusth noted this property is not within <br />1000' of the shoreline, and if it were it would be allowed 35 % hardcover, so hardcover is not <br />an issue. Lot coverage could be an issue but there is not any structure being added. <br />Goetten asked about triggers that may have been in place for a conditional use permit in 1968. <br />Mabusth confirmed there is more zoning review done today than in the past. <br />Kelley asked if Goetten thought the interruption in rental in the late 1960's may not have an <br />effect because the code changed in 1975. <br />City Attorney Staunton explained that since the property was used as a duplex before the zoning <br />code made it non - conforming, it could continue as duplex use. <br />Mabusth added the code changed in 1962 so the use would have had to have been in existence <br />in 1962 and continued through to present. City Attorney Staunton continued that according to <br />the code in 1978, expansion of the bulk of the building would not have been allowed if a <br />conditional use permit was in place. The City should probably not have allowed this expansion, <br />• but it did. This still does not affect the use of the property. <br />City Attorney Staunton explained the concepts of abandonment and discontinuance. <br />Abandonment requires the intent to no longer use the property in the designated way as well as <br />the discontinuance of the use. The Code talks about discontinuance for over 12 months. There <br />is a presumption that if there is a discontinuance for longer than 12 months, there is intent to <br />abandon the use unless there is evidence of no intent to abandon. If they were unable to rent <br />the property for a time, that would not constitute abandonment. <br />Hurr asked about the utilities. Mabusth confirmed they have two gas meters and one water <br />meter. Sewer was installed in the early 1960's. Hun questioned if there should be two sewer <br />assessments. Mabusth replied that staff has recommended that Council look at requiring the <br />payment of another SAC and sewer assessment. <br />Hurr questioned if the non - conforming use changed from two to three to two rental units if this <br />wouldn't indicate a change of use. City Attorney Staunton confirmed the two - family use would <br />not have changed even though there may have been an increase. The change would have to be <br />to another use such as retail to qualify as a change in use. Hurr questioned if the code was clear <br />on whether a change in density would constitute a change in use. Staunton responded that the <br />code only states a "change in use". <br />is 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.