06-13-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1269 Page 2 plumbing and fixtures would have had to have been removed because of the potential of a bootleg connection to the second residential unit. Mrs. Thomas was given an opportunity to file for a Conditional Use Permit. If the Conditional Use Permit was approved, the second sewer unit charge would have been required for the guest apartment in addition to a seperate connection. Through many months of discussion with attorneys and owners and City staff, the final resolve of the sewer connection to the principal residence was sctforth in a declaration of restrictive covenant, review Exhibit E. In that covenant, the previous owner was given the opportunity to maintain the existing plumbing within the existing structure providing for heat, etc. for special storage purposes and cold water plumbing to the outside for landscape use. In addition, the owner was not required to move the sewer line from under the garage. Mrs. Thomas agreed -ot to connect the residential unit within the garage to the sewer line. The zovenant was to be filed in the Chain of Title and to alert any future landowner to the special restrictions surrounding the apartment within the garage. The covenant also states that if a second residential unit is approved for the garage, that the current hook-up would serve the guest apartment and that a new seperate connection would be provided for the principal residence to the sewer. Review Exhibit D, the applicants propose no change within the floor plan of the apartment. The unit consists of approximately 638 s.f. of area consisting of a living room, bedroom, kitchen, and a bath. Based on condition 3 of those covenants, the owner was allowed to remain hooked up to the existing water supply and to maintain, repair, and operate certain hot water heating facilities, including a small furnace for a hot water distribution piping located in the garage and heating the upper floor of the garage building for the protection of the household items stored in the upper area. In reviewing Exhibits E, F, and G, the specific covenant and letters from the Orono staff and the applicants attorney, the intent was that this structure could be used as a second residential unit if at some time in the future the owner would apply for the appropriate permits. It is not customary for second residential apartments or structures such as the one discribed be allowed to maintain a heating plant and inside plumbing. The only thing needed to make it a seperate, independent and legal residential unit would be to physically provide it with a connection to the municipal sewer which is obviously easy to accomplish, since the sewer line runs right under the garage. The structure within 75' of the lakeshore discribed on your survey as existing cabin, Exhibit_ I, would not be a third residential unit on the property, but serves as a storage facility for the family. The structure stores the boating equipment and lawn maintenance equipment, etc. The structure is in good condition and provides the current family with much needed storage area. The use of the second residential unit will not result in additional hardcover on the site. The application as proposed clearly lacks the required area of 4 acres (to support 2 residential units in the LR-lA district). The current residence requires 2 acres and contains only 37,250 s.f. requiring a 49,870 s.f. or 57% variance. The two residential units would require 4 acres or 174,240 s.f, requiring 136,990