11-22-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULiUl ORONO CITY COUNCIL MKETING HELD NOVEMBER 22, 1993 m) ns60 ZELMA Mc Kinney , 3599 Livingston avenue - cont . In response to the question of the use of the property in the past, Mabusth advised there were missing receipts from approximately July 1967 - January 1969. Gayle Siegler explained that during this time period her father had been undergoing heart surgeries. She felt she could substantiate that the property had always been a rental property. Karen Cuff. 3570 Livingston Avenue, stated that she had calculated the hardcover according to the survey submitted and noted a total of 23.3%. Adding either driveway would exceed the 30% allowed. She also stated that she had obtained information on the Uniform Building Code and Fire Codes in effect at the time of construction and noted that if a home was built as a duplex, a sound barrier between levels would have been required as well as smoke detectors (fire alarms), some lighting requirements, interior door specificatioiLS, etc. She asked that Council consider the impact the excess hardcover would have in the area. Greg Goodfellow, 3585 Livingston Avenue, noted that runoff is a problem in this neighborhood and it does not have to be a 100-year rain. He also commented that in 1978 the McKinney’s applied for a building permit which added additional bulk to the building. The statute stated that there was to be no increase or bulk added to the building as of January 1, 1975. However, the City allowed this to happen. He expressed his wish that the Council consider the letter received from their attornev. Goixlfcllow also noted that in January’ of 1983, Pat Molene who rented the third apartment at 3585 Livingston Avenue, filed a complaint with the City of Orono asking why this property could be used as triplex. The Code states a non-conforming use cannot be changed to another non-conforming use. Goodfellow felt a triplex would be considerably different than a duplex. Callahan noted that this application was for a duplex not a triplex. Mabusth confirmed that the application was for the continuation of a non-conforming use, in ;his case a duplex. Jabbour asked if a reduction in density would constitute abandonment of the conditional use. City Attorney Staunton replied that if there had been three units, moving to two units would not be considered abandonment. Jabbour thtmght the Council should consider if there was an intent for the property to be used as a duplex throughout its history. Kelley did not want to vote on this issue until there was proof of the use of the property during the missing 18 months of receipts. Hurr asked if a conditional use permit was conditioned upon the owner staying there, would it lapse upon the owner’s depanurc.^ 1