Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JULY 19.2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(6. «M-M29 MICHAEL KEAVE.NY,342J/342S SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL <br />SITE PLAN REVIEW, f UBUC HEARING- CoalteMd) <br />use within the B-l zoning district or in my other zoning district throughout the City. Mr. Evans <br />summarized that the games use should not be in a B-l District and if allowed by Ordinance, it should <br />be in a separate district. <br />Mr. Evans referred to Issue ^3, asking if the games room use is one deemed similar to the permitted <br />uses in a B-1 retail sales business district. He quoted from Section 78-643 of the Zoning Ordinance <br />for use permitted, such as neighborhood retail sales and commodities, neighborhood service business. <br />He slated that a games room does not come within the existing Ordinance definitions. It is <br />enteitainment different enough to require its own rrti.ris. Mr. Evans pointed out the subject property <br />is as close to the residential neighborhood as t!ie distance betw’een a pitcher's mound and home plate. <br />Referring to Issue #1, .Mr. Evans asked how the bowling alley could still be a non-conforming use <br />since it had been closed for over one year. He suggested that there an effort is underway with the <br />City Council to find a non-conforming use that would be feasible on the site, noting the staff s <br />statement about the applicant working with the City to develop a plan for the use of the property and <br />based on his attendance at city meetings. <br />Citing from paragraph I, on page 3, under Issue *f I, Mr. Evans asked what is ‘strict enforcement of <br />this section' (o(City Code), indicating he believed a use either is or is not a legal non-coiifomiing <br />use. He concluded that the bowling alley is no longer a permitted, legal non-conforming use as it has <br />been closed for over one year and the Code docs not allow for exceptions. <br />Mr. Evaiu read into the record from Section 78-71 of Orono's Zoning Code. Item «8. emphasizing <br />bnguage regarding allowing no expansion or intensification of a non-conforming use. <br />Mr. Evans observed that the notice posted by the City regarding the planning application is not <br />visible to the public road but to read it one must go over private property to see it. He asked the City <br />and its staff to resiew the matter of assuring the posted notices arc visible to the public. <br />Finally, on behalf of Neighbors for a Better Navarre. Mr. Evans requested the Zoning Ordinance be <br />enforced. He advised their organization feels strongly that the City should develop a short-term and a <br />long-term plan for Navarre, and during the plan preparation, a moratorium should be placed on all <br />planning applications. <br />Councilmember Sansevere responded to Mr. E\*ans refereiKe regarding Mr. Kea\*eny working with <br />the City Council, and as a member of the City Council, Sansevere stated he had no knowledge of the <br />City Council working with Mr. Keaveny. Mr. Evans apologized and clarified that he meant to refer <br />to the City, not specifically to the City Council. <br />Mr. Keaveny explained he would be increasing green spaces and was trying to improve the building <br />appearance and to make the building more user friendly to the bowlers. His plans are only to <br />improve the entry, stairs, repair crumbling walls aitd a retaining wall, all to make the building a nicer, <br />neater place. Mr. Keaveny commented he may need other things along with the bowling and pinball <br />machines. <br />Page6ofl3