Laserfiche WebLink
� Q—� <br /> /� � <br /> � � <br /> .� _ <br /> �� CITY of ORONO <br /> a ��� <br /> ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �L9kES1304�G N0. 1.� �"r R � <br /> . � During an inspection of the area, Staff had observed the entire residence had been <br /> removed, except the foundation had remained. As a result, the City of Orono had <br /> placed a hold on the Buildin� Permit to review the variances. <br /> 7. The foundation remains and is located over 1�0' from the lakeshore across County <br /> Road 15. The building being located into the average lakeshore setback may not be <br /> an issue as most houses in the locality are located across County Road 15 and on a <br /> hill. <br /> 8. After beginning the project, the contractor, Michael Hayes Homes, determined a <br /> small portion of the foundation on the back of the house �vould need to be replaced <br /> because it was cracked. Also, some of the joists ���ere rotten requiring the entire <br /> � house to be removed,eYcept the foundation. The contractor had also noted it was not <br /> possible to identify rotted joists or structural problems prior to the removal of some <br /> of the house. Those areas were not visible to an inspector hired by the property <br /> owners. <br /> 9. The house is located outside of the 7�' lakeshore setback and across a County road. <br /> The City has reviewed the impact of the house on the shoreland area and has <br /> determined there would not be a greater impact to the shoreland area than the <br /> preexistin� house. The house would be built entirely w-ithin the foundation. <br /> 10. The contractor would use the foundation and will not increase the building beyond <br /> the footprint previously approved. Only a portion of the foundation that was located <br /> under the east side of the house would be fully replaced, this being done to comply <br /> w�ith the State Building Code requirements. Mr. Hay-es has stated he guarantees the <br /> construction and to guarantee the building he must meet the requirements of the State <br /> Building Code. <br /> 11. The house would be constructed to the specifications revie�t�ed on January 19,2000 <br /> at the Public Hearing �vith the Planning Commission, and at the time of variance <br /> approval. No cilanges to the exterior of the structure are proposed. <br /> 12. The Council finds the contractor should be permitted to continue as the proposed <br /> construction is in keeping with the intent of the variance approvals granted per <br /> Resolution No. 4166. The construction of the house is located beyond the 7�' <br /> lakeshore setback, and would not further impact the lake. <br /> Paje 2 of 3 <br />