|
�50. "'` i "4w.a f� �� , t + � ftp, ; ��r ,iL s + z i as • , '',' : .-; -v - „
<br /> !_''' ,' ht7 ,` ' ;yam, ''', ; �' 74M,VA t „,k ,,, , a z , -
<br /> 3
<br /> : •y s7 ,1 ,r• ,1 3 3 • = o `t+ „W‘0,-... -.7,4-,•.- S vr c
<br /> ti - ) ` , •,-• -"n.„- ' ” ""'t z ". -"'' *' ;i,
<br /> ry
<br /> i i� a 11 R� ; ij#1'a 0411'.3 41 , r�1. l,. ,,.a4
<br /> rt, " ,' '� 44 dl±in ;:i..i' .e.. .. / Xb4- fm' `.3 5 °c�v> 'k'� ± 'r: ys ..... _ .
<br /> pr,'
<br /> April .10, 1980 i ` ,
<br /> ei ,01
<br /> uti � h James Rivers (#539) 0 �i�=
<br /> •
<br /> 1440 Shoreline Drive .
<br /> i'roposcd Rezoning
<br /> ''` , Page 3 4`
<br /> iNi1,1 -A ,
<br /> 4,', nb
<br /> -,`. ; This option would ,requite a finding that the proposed docks were -�3
<br /> t 4, `i not a change of a non-conforming use (prohibited by 31.101) , were
<br /> W'k ,tt ''' not rebuilding of ant, prior discontinued non-conforming use (pro-
<br /> 4r - },• ',ited by 31 . 105) , and would not extend or intensity a non-conforming
<br /> ,3.r;yg, ` use (prohibited by 31 . 108) .
<br /> '','• "44.• , The Planning Commission was obviously influenced by the River's strong
<br /> �>; � appeal and the many letters from Orono residents supporting Windward :4
<br /> 4 Marine, for they never once referred to the previous considerations
<br /> ,4 of the March 17th mooting. Steve Wilson could not accept the applicant's '
<br /> suggestion of. a "developer' s acjreemcnt" (meaning covenants) as a meansA:
<br /> of control . It could not afford tht degree of permanence desired. ;�;
<br /> Oberhauser noted an open space easement filed with the property designating
<br /> the necessary limits on commercial use of the property would give the
<br /> .4
<br /> required long term control .. The Planning Commission agreed. 24,
<br /> ,, iPLANNING COMMISSION f'ECoMML'Nr)ATION
<br /> 4
<br /> 4 On April 7, 1980, the Planning Commission recommended a complete rezoning r
<br /> '
<br /> `_{. as requested by Rivers but with three stipulations: ,,
<br /> 1 . No increase in commercial building area. 1
<br /> 2. No. increase in hardcover, including no increase in parking area. ,:
<br /> 3. No increase in dock use area or number of slips on Tanager Lake. 4
<br /> f These controls were to be limited by an appropriate open space easement. �s
<br /> c.
<br /> STAFF RFCOAtr'f:NDA`I`ION ..°i,
<br /> ft= This whole proposal hoils down to the question of whether or not the `
<br /> proposed docks are a reasonable or acceptable use for the Lake and
<br /> the property in the urea.
<br /> If they arc not, or if there are concerns about other commercial activity ,j
<br /> -4-.• 1 expansion, then the.rc• should be no rezoning. The a1pli.cant would then •:,
<br /> '24.,,',...-: ,„,,,,,', 4 live with the existing dock and buoy layout. or with some rearrangement
<br /> 4 � within the legal Dock Use Area. '
<br /> i' s z,'
<br /> ax, ,
<br /> 4,. ieN
<br /> If the proposed docks are reasonable, then the property should be 4.^
<br /> o � � rezoned to defines th, proper Dock Use Area and to permit expansion and
<br /> reslignment of the dock structure. This option includes rezoning tho
<br /> ,n d, entire parcel. as recommended by the Planning Commission or rezoning l:
<br /> -.•4,. .',", 4 of only that part affected by the proposed dock re.al.l.;nmont: 1 .01. only i;
<br /> A, �+ + the Browns Bay side r)f- ''r�
<br /> Co ' y Road 1 5.
<br /> . t
<br /> ,
<br /> , n
<br />
|