01-09-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1296 January 4, 1989 • . Page 2 of 4 The municipal ordinances do not specifically prohibit the credit of the adjacent principal residence for a shared dock located solely on the lot containing a residence. The code does not distinguish between single vs. shared use of an accessory structure. Refer to Exhibit C, specifically Section 5.42, Subdivision 1 (F) - Definition of Joint Use. Note the Section refers to more than 2 persons and makes no reference to residence owners . Staff has prepared an inventory of unbuildable, substandard lakeshore lots of record (review Exhibits F & G). Of the total 13 substandard, undeveloped lakeshore lots, 4 would not qualify. Parcel B, Page 1 of the section maps was a lot created in the early 1980s and although substandard in area and limited by severe building setbacks, would more than likely be approved as a buildable site. It is interesting to note that per LMCD Section 2.02, Subdivision 3 (review Exhibit B), would also disqualify this lot as a potential candidate because it was created after August 30, 1978 and would in effect require a residence before a dock could be constructed on the property. Parcel D, located on Page 3, is limited by a special lot combination that was required of the owner in a recent variance application (substandard lot with detached structure was combined with homestead lot separated by a platted parcel). Parcels L & M would more than likely be approved as buildable sites as they contain 80% of area but do not meet 80% of the lot width at 62.5'. There are 9 potential candidates that could be used for expanded dock use areas. In reviewing the lakeshore of Orono, staff located other small riparian tracts that would not qualify under this procedure because although identified with individual PIN numbers, they were not adjacent to resident lots. Council may question this interpretation of the municipal ordinances finding that this would never satisfy the real intent of the accessory structure code. C'^uncil may also question, does this open the door to other property owners seeking credit for a principal residence on an adjacent parcel for residential accessory uses currently not allowed under the present interpretation of the accessory structure code. Staff would ask that you review the code sections presented for your review in Exhibits B & C and the enclosed inventory of undeveloped lakeshore record lots. If you have any questions regarding any interpretation of the LMCD or munici-pal ordinances, please contact my office prior to the meeting. In addition, if you seek additional information for the consideraticn of this current request of the applicants, please advise staff prior to the meeting. Options of Action Available to Council - 1. To deny variance application #1296 as amended by the applicants in their recent proposal based on the following findings; A) Proposed Interpretation of the accessory structure code is in complete conflict with the intent of the code.