Laserfiche WebLink
Date AppIication Received: NA <br /> Date Application Considered as Complete:NA <br /> Initial 60-Day Review Period Expires: NA <br /> To: Chair Leskuien and Planning Commission Members <br /> Jessica Loflus, City Admin.istrator <br /> From: Michael P. Ga.�'ron, Senior Planner <br /> Date: July 14, 2015 <br /> Subject: #IS-3755 City of Orono -Zoning Code Amendment <br /> - Section 78-71(c)(3) Expansion of Nonconforming Shuctures <br /> - Public Hearing <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <br /> List of Eahibits <br /> A -Dra.ft Ordiunance <br /> B - Iltustrative Sketches <br /> Application Summary: The proposed amenciment is intended to codify the City's long- ! <br /> standing policy and prac#ice regarding the expansion of nonconforming structures by � <br /> clarifying the site conditions under which such expansions may or may not occur. <br /> Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the revised code language as <br /> presented. <br /> Background <br /> By definition in the Zoning Code,Nonconforming structure means "any structure legally <br /> existing upan January t, 1975, which would not conform to the applicahle regulations if the <br /> structure were ta be erected under the provisions of this chapter". January 1, 1975 is the date <br /> when most current zoni.ng district standards with regard to structure location, dimensivn, size, <br /> area, volu.me, or height were formatly established. <br /> The Zoning Code with regazd to nonconforming structures addresses situations where such a <br /> structure was involuntarily damaged or destroyed; when one wants to voluntarily remodel or <br /> reconstruct an existing nonconforming structure; relocation of an e�isting nonconforming <br /> structure; and expansion of an existing nonconforming structure - se� attached Zoning Code <br /> Section 78-71(c). The sections currently under consideration aze (c)(3a) which discusses <br /> expansion of nonconforming sin e famil residence structures and(c){3b)which discusses <br /> expansion of nanconforming residential accessorY structures. <br /> The City Attorney has brought to sta�s attention that the existing code language dces not <br /> specifically define what is meant by `expansian' of a noncanforming structure. Absent such <br /> definition,the code can be interpreted in a way that does not reflect the City's policy and practice <br /> that has been in place for many decades but never codified. This concern resulted from a recent <br /> applicatian in which the applicant's attorney argued that a variance to add a second story over an <br /> existing substandazd setback should not require a variance. <br />