My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
12-08-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:46:27 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 3:17:31 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.
/
350
PDF
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 <br />3. M2-2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment-Section 78-71 —Regulation of <br />Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures—Continued <br />'Voluntary Destruction ” and establishes separate standards for each. <br />Involuntary Destruction: <br />Voluntary Destruction: <br />retains threshold after which rebuild must be <br />conforming at ‘damage is 75% or more of fair <br />maricet value/ <br />establishes that if less than 50% of fair market value <br />is retained, or if less than 50% of pre-existing <br />volume remains then the entire structure and site <br />must be made conforming. <br />Gaffron stated that if a tornado hit a house and damage exceeded 75% of fair market <br />value, then structure and site must be brought up to code in total. If only 60% of property <br />is damaged, then it may be rebuilt as it was before destruction. That standard has been in <br />place for over twenty years. For voluntary destruction, a teardown, if less than 50% of <br />fair market value is retained, or if less than 50% of the original structure remains, then the <br />entire site must be brought into conformance. <br />Gaffron stated the problem has been when the City approves a remodel, and the applicant <br />tears down to the foundation, or leaves only one wall standing, and then calls it a remodel <br />to avoid bringing the property up to code. The Code amendment gives them a standard at <br />which to hold applicants when determining if a project is a remodel or a rebuild. <br />Murphy asked for an example of volume. Gaftron stated that if one had a single story <br />house with a pitched roof and full basement, and tore down to the cap of the basement, <br />they have removed the first story and the volume of the roof, they would have removed <br />over 50% of the volume of the house. That would trigger the entire property having to <br />come into conformance, including a found.ation that was encroaching into a setback. <br />The proposed code also establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming <br />residence structures as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of <br />nonconforming accessory structures. <br />A lawful, nonconforming residential structure may be expanded, provided it does not <br />increase the nonconformity and complies with all requirements of the district. For <br />example, if a house were nonconforming based on being too close to a setback on one <br />side. The addition could be on the side opposite the substandard setback, provided any <br />expansion of the building met all standard requirements. You could not add a second <br />story where the first story is already too close to the lot. <br />White asked if a house were okay on setbacks, but had too much driveway hardcover. <br />L-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).