04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued) Mr. Goodman proceeded to outline his points, beginning with the point that the application assumes a liquor license that has been denied by the City Council. He commented that the application should be denied because, as applied for, it cannot be granted. Secondly, Mr. Goodman pointed out the bowling alley is a non-conforming use and is not permitted in the B-1 District. According to the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes, he reviewed a statement by Mr. Ode representing the operation to have a common entrance and to have the restaurant function with the bowling alley. Mr. Goodman expressed that this situation is the opposite of what the City intends with its Zoning Code, meaning that the City has legislated against more bowling alleys. To enable the bowling alley to be more viable or more profitable is not the intent of conditional uses and, Mr. Goodman continued, this is the opposite of what should be done with conditional uses. Further, he stated that conditional uses should actually `die' so that a conforming use will replace it. He emphasized his belief that bowling alleys are illegal in the context of the Orono Zoning Code. Thirdly, Mr. Goodman explained the proposal for an integrated use with a common entrance, as a modernization of the bowling alley is illegal as it is an expansion of a non-conforming use, which is not permitted under the Orono Zoning Code. Citing Section 78-71, Mr. Goodman read into the record language regarding `do not extend or intensify' the non-conforming use. Mr. Goodman advised that his opinion, as presented to the City Council with his letter of March 22, 2004 and included in the Planning Commission agenda packet, is that the expansion of the bowling alley by permitting a Class II restaurant (with liquor) would be illegal. He encouraged the Planning Commission to do what the B-1 District allows, i.e. neighborhood services and retail such as video rental and not to attract others to a destination spot. In summary, Mr. Goodman stated that to the extent the application requires a conditional use permit and variances, the application should be denied and not be allowed to expand. Mr. Goodman continued by adding that the variances being applied for with this application are not because of the site layout but because of the plan for the site. Citing the Orono Zoning Code, Mr. Goodman referenced the language regarding granting of variances when `practical difficulties or particular hardships' exist. He asked where is the difficulty on this site, commenting that he believes the site is over-designed therefore necessitating the need for variances, emphasizing the plan therefore needs variances not the site. Mr. Goodman recommended denial of the application. He emphasized the proximity of residential neighbors who need to be put at rest regarding the application, referring to Exhibit N in the staff report to illustrate how close neighbors are to the bowling alley or to a possible new parking lot of a proposed restaurant. In conclusion, Mr. Goodman emphasized it was not the Planning Commission's job to see how to make the proposal work as the B-1 District calls out what uses are permitted and not to expand non- conforming uses as per the law. Page 15 of 49