10-13-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 - r"_B, City of Orono thousands of dollars have been invested to renovate what was previously an eye -sore, Mother several times has tried to sell her nroperty, always running un against what seems to be a needlessly heavy-handed restriction upon its 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-1C rezoning, which envisioned an area of single-fami- ly homes. Ideally, this would be nice. And, it is under- standable that the City might wish past exceptions 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 ori_oinal desiqn of Mother's urornerty were definitely not that or a single-family home. Mor_)ver, the sub -standard -Tot i,Tould itsel` auger aaainst such a conversion. This in mind, the Annli.cant'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 the building is a duplex. The up- stairs unit has always been reside And, 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 space --if indeed it — ncl, actually used such, even before Mother was granted ilding permit in 1976. (The Citv did assess 2 residential water units in 1971, several years Prior to Mother's own—rship.) Then, too, each unit has always had separate access to the street. Considerina the increased traffic on the Count, highway where it is located, the t,uildinq inspector woi.ked with my brother to reposition both entrances on another side of the building. T- so doinn, he not only alleviate: con- cerns for safety over increased use and intensified z.ccess, but tacitly acknowledged the generic nature of the buildina as a duplex by apnrovinq the continued existence of indepen- dent outside access for each residential unit. That such an approval would be unlikely now does not (ainsay the fact that it was granted then --and that this decision was entire- ly iiistic in terms of the buildin,-T'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 suggest residential rather than commercial use. In the most e-ent improvement, the Applicant enhanced this resider. -.al :macie by a complete exterior renovation, inclu-'ir_; a mansard roof to replace the commercial apr)ear- ance of the past. Still, the interior remains two separ- ately accessible units best described as a durl.ex. And, though the lot is certainly substandard, it has nlenty of