My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-25-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
10-25-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 2:05:31 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 1:30:42 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.
/
430
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
r <br />Large Vehicle Storage CUP <br />August 26,2004 <br />Page 2 <br />If the perfomiance standards established by code are met, the Council generally must grant the v^UP. <br />Therefore, to ensure that the possible negative impacts of a given conditional use are addressed and <br />accomrted for, theperfomiance standards must be carefully crafted. Also note that CUP’s are issuedfov <br />a particular use, not for a particular person. If a property owner is granted a CUP, the CUP goes <br />with the pi opeilv and a new owner can continue the use if all the original condition: sre met. <br />Wehave not to date considered ‘ large vehicle storage ’ as a ‘use’, but merely as an ancillary aC ivity that <br />occiu's along with the principal use of aproperty. Establishing ‘large veliicle storage ’ as a condi.ional use <br />may open up a Pandora’s Box of unanticipated consequences and resident expectations. <br />Ai. amendment of the code to pemiit large vehicle storage as an allowed conditional use in the 2-t.cre and <br />5-acrc zones will send the message (and likely be legally constnied) that such storage is generally <br />acceptable in those zones, subject to meeting the performance standards. But if the perfonnance standards <br />then provide limitations so strict that few properties can qualify for the CUP, perhaps we shouldn’t be <br />allowing the use via CUP. The risk is that we will be pressured to giant variances from one or more of the <br />perfonnance standards. For example, we probably should not allow storage of large vehicles in the 2-acre <br />zone via CUP if one of the performance standards is to have a 5-a:re lot, since a majority of 2-acre zone <br />properties won’t meet the 5-acre standard. <br />Can such a CUP legally be made available only to existing users? We will be requesting a legal opinion <br />on tliis question. If a conditional use (read “permitted use with conditions”) is established with a limitation <br />that prohibits any new users, that suggests the use really is act appropriate in the district, and should not <br />be a conditional use because it is not available to any property that meets the established conditions. <br />The bottom line maybe that a use you believe is generally unacceptable within a zoning district should not <br />be listed as a conditional use. “...the question about the right to the use isbasically off the table. It is a <br />matter of how the use may be modified, or its adverse characteristics may be mitigated ” (Shardlow). <br />Conditions or Performance Standards <br />If“Parkingor storage ofa vehicle in excess of 14.Q00 IbsGVW” is listed as a conditional use in the 2-acre <br />and 5 -acre zones, any property which meets the listed conditions for such use would have to be granted <br />a CUP. In order to attach appropriate conditions or performance standards to this use, we should fust <br />identify the potential negative impacts oftiie use on the neighborhood. These might include the following: <br />- Noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vehicle) <br />- Vibration <br />- Glare <br />• Odors <br />____________j
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.