Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 <br />Gundlach stated that the technicality was over conformity because the code does not allow <br />• for kitchens in accessory buildings. <br />Mabusth stated that she felt the kitchen should not be removed based on its small scale, <br />however, if the applicant combined the lots, they would be in compliance and the kitchen <br />would not be an issue. <br />Mr. Pierpont stated that they moved the lot line because of a septic issue. They wanted to <br />have two separate salable lots, one of 2 acres and one of 4 acres. He stated the problem <br />arises with the wetland debate. He maintained that there is no more than 1/s -acre of <br />wetland on the lot. As a result, they have approximately 3.5 acres of dry buildable, <br />instead of 4, which results in the requirement that they remove the kitchen. He stated the <br />sink is the furthest point in their plumbing and if they shut off the sink, they would have <br />problems with pipes freezing. He asked Council to approve the application without <br />requiring the kitchen be removed. <br />Murphy clarified that the matter arose because of a lot line rearrangement issue. He stated <br />he felt it ludicrous to have to remove the kitchen. <br />McMillan stated that the guest house was nonconforming, and removing the appliances <br />was a technicality based on City code, which therefore should be followed. <br />Mr. Pierpont stated that the rule about dry buildable and the confusion about the amount <br />• of wetland made his guest house nonconforming. <br />Mayor Peterson asked about the original application. Gundlach replied that the 1990 <br />permit for the guest house required the lots be combined. If that had happened, there <br />would not be any issue. <br />• <br />Mr. Pierpont stated he would covenant that the guest house never be used inappropriately. <br />White asked if they could have a wet bar in an accessory structure. Gundlach stated he <br />could not. The intent of the code was to allow a bathroom only. The issue is with the sink <br />and the plumbing associated with it. <br />McMillan stated that the ordinance was designed to prevent renting out accessory <br />structures. They had issues to address and the ordinance was the only way to handle <br />them. While the Pierponts might not cause problems, the codes apply to the properties, <br />not the owners. <br />Moorse stated the City could regulate plumbing matters, but could not control appliance <br />use. <br />White stated he would vote to enforce the ordinance. <br />11 <br />