Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 16,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Gaffron shared the ba<rk.ground related to the application, stating that the existing house on <br />this property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in <br />the 0-75' zone. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their <br />purchase (a structure, perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at <br />this exact location) and that boathouse was shown on the survey when the new home was <br />built. <br />Gaffron explained that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse <br />and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans <br />and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely <br />maintenance, in a few respects structural, and some of the work was considered to be <br />expansion. The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work <br />could be appioved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain <br />in detail the extent of woric which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by <br />the builder at $20,000. <br />Gaffron stated that the City assumed that the building would remain in place during the <br />restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as <br />structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed *50% of the structure’s value at the <br />time it became non-conforming’ which the City had long established as January 1, 1975 <br />when the 75' setback orditumce was adopted. The value at that time was likely less than <br />$500, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessor ’s records. <br />Gaffron maintained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all <br />such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction <br />of new accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the <br />ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it <br />was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and <br />set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was <br />PAGE 24 of 31 <br />Ik