02-23-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2004 The variances allow for one oversized accessory building (any structure over 1,0(X) s.f.) beyond what the ordinance allows and for the total square footages of all accessory structures to exceed what the ordinance allows. This was allowed because the ordinance doesn’t specifically address totals for acce.ssory structures on properties of over 9-acres. Mr. Dayton’s main parcel is over 21-acres. If the table were extended out, accessory total limits would allow the bam. The resolution grants approval of two variances stipulating that the properties be combined and the bam moved to the location shown on the plans, and that this work is completed by July 31, 2(M)4. Should the applicant choose to not relocate the bam, or combine the lots the bam would need to be removed in its entirety by July 31,2004. Mr. Dayton stated that the process has been more complicated than they had thought it would be. They are comfortable with the request to combine the lots, and intend to move and renovate the bam. Steve Hoyt of 2865 Little Orchard Way stated that the original variance was granted to the developer of 7 lots. He sold the lot to someone else, who then sold it to the Daytons. The bam has sat there for 100 years without anything being done to it. The variance has expired. The only hardship is the neighbors who have to look at it. None of the neighbors support the maintenance of this nonconforming bam. The covenants that govern the properties do not support it either. The development covenants stated that no lot shall be used except for residential purposes, and no storage is allowed which is untidy or obnoxious to the eye. Also the covenants stated that no bam shall be used as a residence. Mr. Hoyt stated that if the covenants and ordinance are to be respected, the bam should be removed. Sansevere stated that the City did address Mr. Hoyt’s concerns in the resolution particularly regarding the exterior appearance of the bam. He stated that the bam was present when the neighbors built their homes. Mr. Hoyt stated that the properties were marketed with the understanding that the bam would be converted into part of a large home. Murphy stated that if the lots are combined, then the bam will conform with the ordinance. Sansevere asked what Dayton’s plans are for the bam. Mr. Dayton replied that he intends to move it away from the lot line and repair it. It could be used for storage of vehicles, or as an office space. In the subdivision of the neighborhood, the Ancorp people placed a lot line so close to the bam that they had to tear off parts of the bam, creating some of the disrepair Mr. Hoyt complained about. a fi n