01-16-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2099 Januar>’ 10, 1996 Page 10 market value of the tu'o rental cabins as of Kl/75 appears 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 Citv allowed the cabins to continue in use after 1/1/78 is likely a result of lack of enforcement rather than a conscious decision b> the City to allow the commercial usage to continue. In 1980 when the City allowed the then property owner Leo Le\ens to upgrade his septic system, which at that time already served the cabins and principal residence with a single combined system, the City advised Levens of the future Shoreland Regulations which would make his system nonconforming and since municipal sewer was not anticipated at that time, the City allowed the drainfield to be upgraded in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, without making any conclusion regarding the zoning status of the dwellings 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 unit for this 2 acre site was appropriate. Granting of additional sewer units would have resulted in the perpetuation of a nonconforming situation which the City concluded was not in keeping with the zoning or Comprehensive Plan. Issues for Discussion 1.Since the proposed subdivision creates a front/back lot situation which requires the 30’ separate outlot access corridor, is there any justification for a variance to allow the outlot 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 ailow two individual building sites to be created on 2 acres of land in the 2 acre zoning district? 3.If the proposal could be revised sc that each of Lots 1 and 2 as well as the outlot could meet the City's 2.5% 75-250’ hardcover limitation, would the proposal be more feasible? 4.Is the proposed subdivision consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood? 5.Does the average setback variance required for Lot 2, or the side street setback variance required for Lot 1, have any impact on Planning Commission’s view of 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?