Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> . MONDAY,NOVEMBER 24, 2003 � <br /> 3. #02-2829 Orono Zonirag CodeArnen�lment--Section 78-71-Regulation of <br /> � Nonconforming Uses a�ad Nonconforming Structures—Continued <br /> would adding a second story then require reducing the hardcover of the driveway. <br /> Gaffron stated that it would not trigger the hardcover nonconfozmity. <br /> Expansion would be permitted if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to <br /> substandard lot area or width for the disirict in which it is located, and the expansion shall <br /> then meet a11 requzrements of the district. <br /> Gaffron stated that 1/3 — %z of lakeshore homes axe on substandard lots. Some percentage � <br /> of those may have substandard setback or hardcover that would require variance <br /> applications. The amendment provides�standards with which to work regarding such <br /> applications. - <br /> In cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50% of the required setback <br /> for that district, the City may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the <br /> opposite yard depth to.result in an ag�egate yard depth equivalent to the combined <br /> required yard. <br /> The Planning Commission felt that there ought to be some threshold at which they look at <br /> . oompensating for an extremely substandard situation. If a house had a 4' setback on one <br /> � side,where 10' is required,they could be requized to make up the difference on the other � � <br /> side. If that was not possible, then the City would consider a variance. <br /> White asked if the code could lead to residents feeling the City has removed rights. <br /> Barrett stated that he had not yet closely reviewed the ordinance, Any ordinance the City <br /> � � drafts could brush up against Constitutional rights. The language in item 3(C) reads, , <br /> "may require,"which means Council would set a series of precedents as to how the <br /> � ordinance is interpreted and enacted. <br /> Gaffron stated most cities' codes have a 50%threshold. <br /> Accessory structures have the same caveats in general. Itern 4(C), was a little different, <br /> stating that when an accessory'structure is located too close to a lot line,the City could <br /> require that the structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with <br /> � respect to setbacks. <br /> Gaffron stated that a detached garage that comes up for remodel, the City may require the <br /> entire structure be rnoved into confozmance. <br /> The Planning Commission recommended approval. Gaffron stated that Council could <br /> . approve, amend, or table it for further review. <br /> 4 <br />