02-12-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #2099 January 10, 1996 Page 10 market value of the two rental cabins as of 1/1/75 appeals to have been approximately $1,900 combined. Technically therefore the nonconforming use for rental purposes was required by code to cease as of 1/1/78. In effect the City has tacitly allowed this use an eighteen year grace period. The fact that the City allowed the cabins to continue in use after 1/1/78 is likely a result of lack of enforcement rather than a conscious decision by the City to allow the coramcrctal usage to cominue. In 1980 when the City allowed the then property owner Leo Levens to upgrade hts septtc system, which at that time already served the cabins and principal residence with a sing e com me system, the City advised Levens of the future Shoreland Regulations which would maf e his system nonconforming and since municipal sewer was not anttcipated at that ttme the Ctty allowed the dtainfteld to be upgraded in order to protect the pubitc health, salcty an we arc. without making any conclusion regarding rhe zoning status of the dwelltngs to be served. The issue of the cabins' nonconformity came to a head in 1992 when the City reviewed the issue of municipal sewer and determined that only one stub and one sewer tmtt for thts acre sire was appropriate. Granting of additional sewer units would have resulted m the perpetuatton of a nonconforming situation which the City concluded was not tn kceptng with the zoning or Comprehensive Plan. Issues for Discussion I Since the proposed subdivision creates a front/back lot situation which requires the 30' separate outlet access corridor, is there any justification for a variance to allow the oullot to be less than the 30’ minimum required width? Given the need for lot area variances for both proposed lots, is there any justification to allow two individual building sites to be created on 2 acres ot land in the - acre zoning district? If the proposal could be revised .so that each of Lots 1 and 2 as well as the outlot could meet the Ciw’s 25% 75-250' hardcover limitation, would the proposal be more feasible. 4. Is the proposed subdivision consistent with the character of the surrounding neichborhood? w 5 Does tne as eraue setback variance required tor Lot 2. or the side street setback variance required for Lot 1. have any impact on Planning Commission’s view ot this proposal. 6. Could approval of this subdivision set a negative precedent and result in pressures for higher density development in Orono’s 2 acre zone?