|
r r -• ? . -P- :
<br /> F
<br /> -7 x -fir--zst f :a. 'a ,
<br /> •
<br /> t, ',' ` .,d
<br /> t.....,•.,
<br /> , a.
<br /> y
<br /> :
<br /> .
<br /> p t '''';`,,,V, s3'' I At ✓w i? , • i? 'A. t .^1,0'1,.
<br /> �'"1.'3,-;_,,,,:::: ✓,, !4''
<br /> r" [ w- Y yfiiy), ,I m _ �3i.z1. ''''-'4.4'.1.'hn - ts ' orb - mo -{4;-:,,Z;-‘:,, 4 ii y r7 1 s .�. rrt'4 r ,'; -%;-",.* :. r t L.. 4 ' , .pTr4.',,,-:4-0'.,= s' " '
<br /> ti ✓. F "" Pt'- ^ r4 �r 7 Y,s [rii ,: r :.,.%, i•G^ � q,.i CimyY_p ,, .,,s ....„. :,,{!�
<br /> •93,
<br /> : � C,YlitA, C � t 0 X? , ' Y '14` `'
<br /> @ 1 . r. y ;a7 y1; * .fiN, Aft, I ,: • ary 4#', ,1A -, i p fi 'y c # y4
<br /> - ilie • • .^1 + T:- - }JI ;.: 1 v� 4 vn Yw'L. yM } 'i, r; .
<br /> I*r ; -11iia + .+4 . f*: R,. ,,,; , •e }wc"IVv- al# Att :Y.i4 'Ys"gk4" rt,„,¢ * � Y i
<br /> p$ t 4k;
<br /> ' - iF
<br /> t,4,-..,'',
<br /> ilt
<br /> n' f * •• April 17, 1980 t '3si James Rivers (#539) , .44
<br /> 1440 Shoreline Drito R
<br /> •
<br /> 4. Rezoning
<br /> -,1,71', 4 ,- ..,
<br /> 4ieroposed Page 3
<br /> rtr This option would .reclni re a finding that the proposed docks were
<br /> Y t not a change of a non-conforming use (prohibited by 31.101) , were x
<br /> -44
<br /> not rebuilding of an; prior discontinued non-conforming use (pro-
<br /> s
<br /> r ;' t L"dtcd by 31 . 105) , and would not extend or intensity a non-conforming •
<br /> Ase (prohibited by 31 . 108) .
<br /> , �:, The Planning Commission was obviously influenced by the River 's strong
<br /> Appeal and the many letters from Orono residents supporting Windward
<br /> Marine, for they never once referred to the previous considerations
<br /> 's of the March 17th meeting. Steve Wilson could not accept the applicant's ,
<br /> °
<br /> .§ suggestion of a "developer' s acjreement" (meaning covenants) as a means
<br /> of control . It could not afford tht degree of permanence desired.
<br /> rq
<br /> Oberhauser noted an open space easement filed with the property designating
<br /> tt the nec:-scary limits on commercial use of the property would give the '
<br /> fn required long term control. The Planning Commission agreed.
<br /> A
<br /> 7' 'V PLANNING COMMISSION f ECOMMCNDATION
<br /> '',` On April 7, 1980, the Planning Commission recommended a complete rezoning 1
<br /> as requested by Rivers but with three stipulations: •;'
<br /> 1. No increase in commercial building area. ',j'
<br /> 2. No. increase in hardcover, including no increase in parking area.
<br /> 1 3. No increase in dock use area or number of slips on Tanager Lake. '�'
<br /> R
<br /> f These controls were to be limited by an appropriate open space easement. .,I
<br /> p `r' STAFF RRC0MMENDA`I`ION
<br /> . This whole proposal }.toils down to the question of whether or not the -1."�i k
<br /> proposed docks aro a reasonable or acceptable use for the Lake and { ,
<br /> at
<br /> :.- the property in the area.
<br /> > q.
<br /> d mowz If they arc not, or if there are concerns about other commercial activity
<br /> rte, expansion, then there• should be no rezoning. The applicant would then ..,,
<br /> sk • live with the existirrq dock and buoy layout or with some rearrangement ,
<br /> , c within the legal Dock Use Area.
<br /> Y 'y
<br /> If the proposed docks are reasonable, then the property should be t
<br /> r,�
<br /> P' = rezoned to do fine, the proper Dock Use Area and to permit expansion and
<br /> A . 4 ,..' relignment. of the dock structure. This option includes rezoning the
<br /> {+ �s :lentire parcel as recommended by the Planning Commission or rezoning
<br /> e ,»..4 _ of only that part of tr rtrrl by the proposed dock real I::nments i .a• only .r'.
<br /> , ,
<br /> . the BrownsBay n 1•:le ref f�C:-n. y Road 15.
<br /> t
<br /> t Yt.
<br /> 1
<br /> t4, n
<br /> 3
<br /> , 11.,‘-, :.: ,:.
<br /> ;
<br /> S�...,,,,:0, ;r
<br /> }pk &
<br /> r '4 _ 1
<br /> r
<br /> tib>b 11,,,, .ti -4=c?~'("Sk 5' ' Y i- 4A-,.' K44H4a
<br /> r eE x,x:-t,rA' t_.u46 / 0,:-.rc' *+�• r •c^s „� * ,7,''f. 11'...,....
<br />
|