#3946-variances-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, , ` � � . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL � MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 � • (#5 -#2264 Janet Kiernan- Continued) � Kelley asked if the contractor knew of the situation. The contractor said he did. Dzurik said when he spoke with the building inspector about the framing,noting he had to raise the foundation two courses and suspend the structure in mid-air,he saw that only 5%of . � �existing foundation could be incorporated into the blueprint,the role of common.sense � . �. r took over. � Kelley asked if the applicant was informed when the project got to the point where over 40% of the structure was removed. Dzurik said he assumed the building officials knew ' � of the 40%requirement and should have informed him that no more could be removed. Jabbour felt the project went one step beyond where it should have with the framing. He . said when the applicant made application, she was told the variances would be given but should hire a structural engineer to certify soundness of the foundation. Jabbour said he . � had thought this would result in undue hardship so the applicant was granted variances �� � � provided 40% of the existing structure could be saved. Jabbour said the applicant chose to go forward and found out that 40% of the structure could not be saved. Dzurik said he was told to remove more of the structure by the building inspector. He said the structure could have been underpinned. Dzurik said he asked the building � - inspector if the removals would cause the project to be stopped and was told absolutely � � not and told him to take additional structure down. Dzurik felt this did not make sense. � Flint said he agrees with Jabbour and Kelley that the project was new construction. Peterson agreed. ' . � ' Kiernan said she feels caught in the middle. She said she informed Dzurik not to do anything without talking.to the City. She noted the project has cost alot and this will bear additional cost burdens. Jabbour noted the possibility of having to go through the entire process again. He noted � that the applicant did not have a house that could be added onto. He cited another _ example of a similar situation. � Kiernan felt there were ways to have worked with the materials, such as underpinning, and it�vas the inspector's opinion to remove further structure. She noted there was a • ' � structural enaineer on the job. ' Jabbour said the building inspector could come to the next meeting to answer questions but feels the project has gone beyond the parameters of the resolution. � � 5 �