My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-2003 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
11-24-2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2012 4:25:29 PM
Creation date
5/16/2012 4:25:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 <br />• 3. #02 -2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment --- Section 78-71—Regulation of <br />Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures — Continued <br />Murphy asked about the overall basic goal of the ordinance changes. Gaffron stated that <br />Orono's code never had a threshold for how far one could go on a remodel before it <br />triggered the need to come into conformance. The proposed ordinance will limit <br />expansions and require properties be brought into conformity if too much is torn down. <br />Murphy stated his only concern was whether the attorney should review it before Council <br />voted. <br />Barrett asked if there was any need to rush on the ordinance. Gaffron stated there was not. <br />McMillan asked if there was a volume distinction for involuntary destruction. Gaffron <br />stated there was not. This part of the code always contained a "75% of fair market value" <br />distinction. Staff felt with voluntary destruction, volume would be fairly easily addressed. <br />McMillan asked if in the past, on a teardown where the foundation was left, would they <br />have allowed someone to rebuild in a nonconforming situation. Gaffron stated that if the <br />foundation was too close to the lotline or lake, they would need a variance to put back <br />anything that was nonconforming. <br />McMillan stated her concern was that some people might not be able to get the same value <br />of house as they already had by bringing the property into conformance on a substandard <br />lot. <br />Gaffron stated that the logical situation would be to look at a variance for such a property. <br />The intent of the code was not to make substandard lots with substandard houses currently <br />in existence unbuildable, but to give clear direction that if the ability exists to make a <br />property conforming, then it is expected. Variances would continue to be granted where <br />there is clearly a hardship. <br />Murphy moved, and White seconded, to table Item 3, Orono Zoning Code <br />Amendment — Section 78- 71— Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and <br />Nonconforming Structures, for legal review. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />4. #03 -2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road — Administrative <br />Appeal <br />The applicants were not present. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.