02-13-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( #06 -3171 John and Joan Brooks, Continued) deck behind the knoll, which would help to conceal it and lessen its impact on the lake. In addition, the size of the deck would be reduced and there would be additional screening of the deck provided, which would also reduce the impact of the deck and building on the lakeshore. Brooks indicated the existing house is located on a hill and that there is a dramatic drop -off down to the lake. Relocating the deck would allow easier access to the deck and lakeshore. Brooks stated the addition of the plumbing in the boathouse would make it a more enjoyable and would accommodate the needs of the people in the lower yard rather than forcing them to climb a number of stairs to access the residence at the top. White requested Staff address the issue of nonconformity. Gaffron noted state statutes have changed in the last couple of years and that property owners are allowed to reconstruct but not expand an existing nonconformity. Gaffron stated the issue is whether the structure would be better if reconstructed in its present location or if it is relocated. • City Attorney Brokl stated he has met with Staff over this issue and that Orono's city codes contain specific language that goes further than what state statutes currently allow. Brokl indicated the City • would be drafting an ordinance that would parallel the state statutes, but that at the current time he is relying on the state statutes. Brokl stated there are basically two issues to consider with this application. One, the changes to the storage shed to a more livable structure would be classified as an intensification or expansion of a use. Brokl stated this application would not fall under the section of the ordinance referenced by the applicant's architect since it is a nonconforming structure and that the City Council does not have to approve the application. Brokl stated on the other hand, the Council does have the right to find that it is a reasonable use, and if there is a finding of reasonable use, which would constitute a hardship, the Council could approve the application. Brokl indicated the same situation exists with the deck and that if the Council finds relocation of the deck to be a more reasonable use of the property, they would have the right to approve the variance. Brokl stated the proposed changes do clearly expand the use of the structure and would fall under the nonconformity section of the City Code, which would give the City Council the right to deny the variance if it so chooses. Sansevere stated he is not convinced that the request for a toilet is not unreasonable. Sansevere commented the installation of a toilet would increase the use of the structure. Murphy noted this structure has been called a number of different things, and inquired exactly what the structure is. Brooks stated the structure is basically a storage area where they store life jackets and other items related • to their boat. PAGE 12 of 25