Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, February 13,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3171 John and Joan Brooks, Continued) <br /> deck behind the knoll, which would help to conceal it and lessen its impact on the lake. In addition, the <br /> size of the deck would be reduced and there would be additional screening of the deck provided, which <br /> would also reduce the impact of the deck and building on the lakeshore. <br /> Brooks indicated the existing house is located on a hill and that there is a dranzatic drop-off down to the <br /> lake. Relocating the 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 and would accommodate the <br /> needs of the people in the lower yard rather than farcing them to climb a number of stairs to access the <br /> residence at the top. <br /> White requested Staff address the issue of nonconforniity. <br /> Gaffron noted state statutes have changed in the last couple of years and that property owners are allowed <br /> to reconstruct but not expand an existing nonconformity. 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 contain <br /> specific language that goes further than what state statutes currently allow. Brokl indicated the City <br /> would be drafting an ordinance that would parallel the state statutes,but that at the cunent 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 structure 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 application. Brokl stated on the other hand, the Council does have the right to find that 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 indicated 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 under the <br /> nonconformity section of the City Code, which would give the City Council the right to deny the variance <br /> if it so chooses. <br /> Sansevere stated he is not convinced that the request for a toilet is not unreasonable. Sansevere <br /> cominented the installation of a toilet would increase the use of the structure. <br /> Murphy noted this structure has been called a number of different things, and inquired exactly what the <br /> structure is. <br /> Brooks stated the structure is basically a storage area where they store life jackets and other items related <br /> to their boat. <br /> PAGE 12 of 25 <br />