09-22-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 - ?1B, City of Orono P thousands of dollars have been invested to renovate what was previously an eye -sore, Mother several times has tried to sell her nrooerty, always running un against what seems to be a needlessly heavy-handed restriction upon i;:s use. 3. The basis for the Applicant's appeal. Apparently, the City's position has grown out of its intent and purpose in the LR-lC rezoning, which envisioned an area of single-fami- ly homes. Ideally, this would be nice. And, it is under- standable that t'ie City might wish past excentions to the 1976 Code to simply "fade away." In some cases, however, that simply won't happen. In this unique instance, for ex- ample, the previous use and oricinal design of Mother's property were definitely not that or a single-family home. Moreover, the sub-standar3-Tot -ould itsel' auger against such a conversion. This in mind, the Applicant's desire has always been to upgrade her property to its most realis- tic use. That use is quite obviously a duplex. Those members of the Planning Commission who voted for this use were precisely the ones who took time to inspect the property and to see for themselves what we have known and stated for years -- that the very nature of t:,e building is a duplex. The up- stairs unit has always been residential. And, though the downstairs unit was used in the past as a grocery and then as a dry-cleaning establishment, it always carried with it the potential of easy conversion to residential living spE --if indeed it was not actually used such, even before Mot..QL was granted a building permit in 1976. (The Citv did assess 2 residential water units in 1.971, several !ears prior to Mother's ownership.) Then, too, each unit has always had s-parate access to the street. Considering the increased t "fic on the Countv highway where it is located, the bui_dinq inspector worked with my brother to reposition both entrances on another side -he building. In so doing, he not only alleviated con- cerns for safety over increased use and intensified access, but tacitly acknowledged the generic nature of the building as a duplex by approving the continued existence of indepen- dent outside access for each residential unit. That such an approval would be unlikely now does not _gainsay the fact that it was granter: then --and that this decision was entire- ly realistic in terms of the building's generic nature. To achieve as much consistency as possible with the City's desire for an area of single-family homes, the building in- spector wisely insured that the outside appearance would indeed suggese residential rather than commercial use. In the most recent improvement, the Applicant enhanced this residential image by a complete exterior renovation, including a mansard roof to replace the commercial apnear- ance of the past. Still, the interior remains two separ- ately accessible units best described as a duplex. And, though the lot is certainly substandard, it has plenty of