My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-27-2006 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
02-27-2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2015 1:59:51 PM
Creation date
7/13/2015 1:59:21 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
285
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 <br /> 3. #02-2829 O��ono Zonirzg CodeAntendment—Section 78-71—Regulatian of <br /> Nonconforming Uses andNonconforming Structures—Condnued <br /> Mwrphy asked about the overall basic goal of the ordinance changes. Gaffron stated that <br /> Orono's code never had a tru•eshold for how far one could go on a remodel before it <br /> triggered the need to come into conformance. The proposed ordinance will limit <br /> expansions and require properties be brought into conformity if too much is torn down. <br /> Murphy stated his only concern was whether the attorney should review it before Council <br /> voted. <br /> Barrett asked if there was any need to rush on the ordinance. Gaffron stated there was not. <br /> McMillan asked if there was a volume distinction for involuntary destruction. Gaffron <br /> stated there was not. This part of the code always contained a "75% of fair market value" <br /> distinction. Staff felt with voluntary destruction, volume would be fairly easily addressed. <br /> McMillan asked if in the past, on a teardown where the foundation was left, 5vould they <br /> have allowed someone to rebuild in a nonconforznin�situation. Gaffron stated that if the <br /> foundation was too close to the lotline or lake, they would need a variance to put back <br /> anything that was nonconformin�. <br /> McMillan stated her concern was that some people might not be able to get the same value <br /> of house as they already had by bringing the property into conformance on a substandard <br /> lot. <br /> Gaffron stated that the lo�ical situation would be to look at a variance for such a property. <br /> The intent of the code was not to make substandard lots with substandard houses currently <br /> in existence unbuildable, but to give clear direction that if the ability exists to make a � <br /> property conforming, then it is expected. Variances would continue to be granted where <br /> there is clearly a hardship. <br /> Murphy moved, and White seconded, to table Item 3, Orono Zoning Code <br /> Amendment—Section 78-71—Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and <br /> Nonconforming Structures, for legal review. � <br /> Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> 4. #03-2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadytivood Road—Administrative <br /> Appeal <br /> The applicants were not present. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.