01-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^ • A rO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Wes and Brenda Byrne (homeowners) SUBJECT: “Plan Revisions ” at 2817 Casco Point Road This memo is written to dtKument additional issues related to the “Plan Revisions ” to our building project that might nowr require an additional variance application. I) There was never any attempt to skirt conditions of the currently approved variance and building permit. Orono inspectors have frequently been brought in to mspcct the progress of w ork so as to try to prevent the types of problems that are now halting the project. 2) The house plans have not been changed. The approved plans clearly indicate that a new roof would be constructed on an 8 foot wall to integrate the new and old sections of the house. The problem is related to the fact that the old house had a low roof. On the north side (si.x feet from the property line), the root was set on a second floor wall whose height was less than 5 feet, Originally, we had mistakenly thought that we would be able to build olTthat existing wiill. But when our carpenter (Roger Roy) got to the wall, he knew that sucii an extension would not meet code. In fact, there was no way to legally construct the new wall except to build it from the first floor ceiling up This necessitated removal of the existing short w all. But w hetj the inspector saw that the old second floor wall had been removed, we were not allowed to replace it. Here the question could be raised, “What should we have done dilTerently'’” But there is no correct answer to this question. With the low second-floor walls of the old house, the variance and building permits should never have been granted as worded, because the conditions could never have been met. The house could never have been built os planned. 3) As an additional problem, concerns arc now being raised as to whether the foundation on the north side can support a two-story house. Yet this same foundation was available for inspection la.st year, and has been inspected on multiple occasions during the building priKcss. Everjone knew that it was questionable, but what makes it difficult to judge is the fact that it has successfully withstood 60 years of holding up two stories and a roofline. In addition, work performed by our foundation contractor (Paul Berquist) on the new parts of the house will improve the long-term integrity ol the old foundation. For example, our new ba.sement will allow heat into the old foundation and surrounding ground. I herc will also be better drainace and insulation around it. 1 he new rooflines will shift roof weight to the front and back of the house, and away from the side with the old foundation. T<tr the foundation to now become a reason for preventing, completion of the planned project .seeim terribly unfair. It should be noted that we were originally hoping to use as much of the old house as possible to save money. We are working with a very limited amount of money. We are not trying to escape our responsibility for this problem. However, if someone a year ago could have just noticed the low second floor w'all on the north side, or let us know that the old foundation could be used at any time as a project-stopper, we would have designed a diflerent house. If we now are forced to move the entire wall in 4 feet, we will have to endure substantially greater costs, we will lose over 200 square Jeet of living area, and the outer appearance of the new house will be compromised (which will affect resale value). 'I 4 L