02-23-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 - MB, 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 nronerty, always running up 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 nuroose 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 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 original design of Mother's property were definitely not that or a single-family home. Moreover, the sub-standar=ot wouir? 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 rho 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 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 space --if indeed it was not actually used such, even before Bother was granted a building permit in 1976. (The City did assess 2 residential. water units in 1971, several dears prior to Mother's ownership.) Then, too, each unit has always had separate access to the street. Considering_ the increased traffic on the Count�i highway where it is located, the buildinq inspector worked with my brother to reUosition both entrances on another side of the buil-lin�_j. In so doinrl, he not only al levi_a'_Prl con- cerns for safety over increased use and intensific;d access, but tacitiv acknowledc^�! the generic nature of th,a building as a duplex by arr,rrv1.nq the continued existence of inder_en- dent outside access f..Dr each residential unit. ...-,t sack an approval would be unlikely now does not gainsay the fact that it was granted then --and that this decision was entire - Iv realistic in terms of the buildinn's (-teneric nature. To .-achieve as much consistency as T)ossible with the City's desire for an area of sinole-family homes, the building in- spector wisel'.' insured that the (,utside aT)oearance would indeed suo,Test: ri"'idential rathor than commercial use. Tn thi ;i'.C,,st. I ct'ent flie qj,l icant enhanced t.hl: *"csif7entLill lTia'ic by •:i t-("'!etc E'}:tcric,,- renovation, inoILic'•in't 0 !T,an,ai x i r-r f t,. rc,t,iace the corlrnercial aDneat- ance )f th":, p lst . ;;t i l ! , the into, i C?T remains two sen-ir- itC'11' i1CCf ili. i(' I11t 'a l E''tif 'le -,(-I 11 E'<l as a dI.1p1eX. And, thi'u,Th the 1of_ :F; r( It has relent", of