Laserfiche WebLink
MD^ajTESOFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monvlay, June 16,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which consisted of <br />massive posts sunk into the ground with massive beams upon which the structure sits. <br />They were advised to stop work. Gaffron reported that staff contacted the City attorney <br />and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ’legal non-confonming’ status it may <br />have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it was placed back on the original <br />foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its <br />grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly would be ’structural alteration ’ and <br />undoubtedly exceed 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. <br />Gaffron explained that the applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for <br />an afier-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the stracture on its new foundation in <br />the 0-75* zone. Gaffron noted that visual observation at the site suggests that the strucbore <br />was likely within the floodplain and subject to floodplain legulations. <br />After identifying 6 issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends that the <br />variances be denied, on the basis that this structme has been removed and should no longer <br />retain its status as an existing non-confoiming structure. Had the structure remained in <br />place and the foundation woric been accomplished without its removal and with the proper <br />permits, it might have qualified as an exception. But, Gaffron believed the foundation <br />work was done without permits and moved 50' away to be restored. He argued that it was <br />moved off its grandfathered location and should be granted no further nonconforming <br />structure status; therefore, the new foundation work should be removed and the ''•truchu'c <br />removed from the property, or relocated on the site to a conforming location. <br />Boder stated that permits were issued and work red tagged. After consulting with the City <br />Attorney, Boder stated that he agreed it would need to be moved in order to place the <br />plywood sheeting; however, it would be incorrect to call the foundation new material, as <br />the old posts were used. Boder pointed out that Lyle Oman, building inspector himself, <br />had concluded that this was old material, not new as Gaffron reported. <br />PAGE 25 of 31