Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 , <br /> 3. #02-2829 Oroiio Zorzing Code Arnertdmerit---Section 78-71 Regrrlation of <br /> Noncoriforming Uses and Nonconforming Structa�res—Contincred <br /> "Voluntary Destruction" and establishes separate standards for each. <br /> Involuntary Destruction: retains threshold after which rebuild must be <br /> conforming at `damage is 75% or more of fair <br /> market value.' <br /> Voluntary Destruction: establishes that if less than 50% of fair market value <br /> is retained, or if less than 50% of pre-existing <br /> volume remains then the entire structure and site <br /> must be made conforming. <br /> Gaffron stated that if a tomado hit a house and damage exceeded 75% of fair market <br /> value, then structure and site must be brought up to code in total. If only 60% of property <br /> is damaged, then it may be rebuilt as it was before destruction. That standard has been in <br /> place for over twenty years. For voluntary destruction, a teardown, if less than 50% of <br /> fair market value is retained, or if less than SO% of the original structure rernains, then the <br /> entire site must be brought into conformance. <br /> Gaffron stated the problem has been when the City approves a remodel, and the applicant <br /> tears down to the foundation, or leaves only one wall standing, and then calls it a remodel <br /> to avoid bringing the property up to code. The Code amendment gives them a standard at <br /> which to hold applicants when determirung if a project is a remodel or a rebuild. <br /> Murphy asked for an example of volume. Gaffron stated that if one had a single story <br /> house with a pitched roof and full basement, and tore down to the cap of the basement, <br /> they have removed the first story and the volume of the roof, they would have removed <br /> over 50% of the volume of the house. That would trigger the entire property havin� to <br /> corne into conformance, including a foundation that was encroaching into a setback. <br /> The proposed code also establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming <br /> residence structures as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of <br /> nonconforming accessory structures. <br /> A lawful, nonconformin; residential structure may be expanded, provided it does not <br /> increase the nonconformity and complies with all requirements of the district. For <br /> example, if a house were nonconforming based on being too close to a setback on one <br /> side. The addition could be on the side opposite the substandard setback, provided any <br /> expansion of the building met all standard requirements. You could not add a second <br /> story where the first story is already too close to the lot. <br /> White asked if a house were okay on setbacks, but had too much driveway hardcover, <br /> 3 <br />