|
2 - MB, City of Orono
<br />tb,-.usands of dollars have been invested to renovate what
<br />wa-> previously an eye -sore, Mother several times has tried
<br />to sll her nronerty, always running up against what seems
<br />:o o., a needlessly heavy-handed restriction upon it:3 use.
<br />3. Tl.e ba-,:i:< .for the Applicant's appeal. Apparently, the
<br />City=s po:_•. `1n has grown out of its intent and purpose in
<br />the LR-lC r-«, ning, which envisioned an area of single-fami-
<br />lv domes. this would. be nice. And, it is under
<br />-
<br />standabla 7ity might wish PLst exceptions to the
<br />1976 Code to "facie away." In some cases, however,
<br />that simply iv. yen. In this unique instance, for ex-
<br />ample, the pre,!- use and original design of Mother's
<br />property were definitely not that or a ni.ngle-family home.
<br />Moreover, the sub-standarTt of mould itsel` auger against
<br />such a conversion. This in mind, the Annlicant's desire
<br />has dlerays been to upgrade her property to its most realis-
<br />tic use.
<br />That use is quite obviously a duplex. Those members of the
<br />Planning Commission who voted for this use were precisely
<br />the ones who took time to inspect the property and to see
<br />for themselves what we have known and stated for years --
<br />that the very nature of the buildingTis a dui lex. The tip -
<br />stairs unit has always been resident al. And, though the
<br />downstairs unit was ased in the past as a grocery and then
<br />as a dry-cleaning establish,,,ent, it always carried with it
<br />the potential of easy conversion to residential living
<br />sp ce--if indeed it was not actually used such. even before
<br />Mother was -ranted a building permit in 1976. (The City
<br />did a,sess residential water units in 1971, several .,ed?
<br />prior. to Plot ier's ownership.)
<br />Then, too, each unit has always had separate access to the
<br />street. Considering *he increased traffic on the Countv
<br />highway where it is located, the buil.dinq inspector worked
<br />with my brother to r -nos.iti,n both entral,ces on another side
<br />of the buildinq. .n sr) -IC,, Ya not 7-nly allevi.^*.e,' con-•
<br />terns for safet•, over yes u--e and intensif_ . acr.ess,
<br />but tacitly acknowledge:. _.,,2 generic nature of thbuildingi
<br />as a duplex by avoroving the continued existence of inder_en-
<br />dent outside access for each re-idential unit. That sach
<br />an approval would be unlikElN I da(e=; not -,.uinsav the fact
<br />that it was granted then--anu ;-.i,at ti. s decision w i rtice-
<br />ly realistic in terms of the ..ilditng's ocneric n&
<br />To achieve as mi •i consistency :s ossible with the City's
<br />desire for an arc— c, �- sing' -fam hr.,mes, the bui l din,.t .n-
<br />spect.or wisely -c.4' *),a, the '.)utC 4ide ani-)earanc e would
<br />indeed such;est rather t -an nreicia. � se.
<br />In the most recent improvement, the T-)pLicant enh;:ir,. at;
<br />this residential imane by a complete ex,rr rerin%it.on,
<br />i ncludinn a mansard roof to rer 'ace the .,t._ cc 0 1 annear-
<br />ance c- f the past. Still, th,_ i nti r for remains twn set),:i
<br />ately accessible unit.:; hest ;eseribed ;1s ,i And,
<br />t' ,ih the Ir is (" r`.,aini',' if?Fi(. •('l/�:]rCt, �.'�:,. ,f
<br />
|