Laserfiche WebLink
��nvuT�s or TxE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL ME�TING <br /> Nlonday,Febi•uary 13,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Brooks indicated the existing house is located on a hill and that there is a dramatic drop-off down to the <br /> lake. Relocating tlie deck would allow easier access to the deck and lakeshore. Brooks stated the <br /> addition of the plumbing in the boathouse would make it a more enjoyable aud would acconuuodate the <br /> needs of the people in the lower yard rather than forcing them to cluilb a number of stairs to access the <br /> residence at the top. <br /> White requested Staff address the issue of nonconfonnity, <br /> Gaffron uoted state statutes have changed in the last couple of years and that property owners are allowed <br /> to reconstruct but not expand an existing nonconfonnity, Gaffron stated the issue is whether the structure <br /> would be better if reconstructed in its present location or if it is relocated. <br /> City Attomey Brokl stated he has met with Staff over this issue and that Orono's city codes coutain <br /> specific lauguage that goes further than what state statutes cun-ently allow. Brokl indicated the City <br /> would be drafting an ordinance tliat would parallel the state statutes,but that at the cun•ent time he is <br /> relying on the state statutes. <br /> Brokl stated there are basically two issues to consider with this application. One,the changes to the <br /> storage shed to a more livable struchu-e would be classified as an intensification or expansion of a use. <br /> Brokl stated this application would not fall under the section of the ordinance referenced by the <br /> applicant's architect since it is a nonconfonning structure and that the City Council does not have to <br /> approve the applicatioil. Brokl stated on the other hand,the Council does have the right to find 'chat it is a <br /> reasonable use, and if there is a finding of reasonable use, which would constitute a hardship,the Council <br /> could approve the application. <br /> Brokl iudicated the same situation exists with the deck and that if the Council finds relocation of the deck <br /> to be a more reasonable use of the property,they would have the right to approve the variance. Brokl <br /> stated the proposed changes do clearly expand the use of the structure and would fall uiider the <br /> nonconfonnity sectioil of tlie City Code,which would give the City Council tlie right to deny the variance <br /> if it so chooses. <br /> PAG� 14 of'31 <br />