Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 16,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Mabusth asked if the Attorney had submitted any ruling in writing to this application. <br />Gaffron stated that he had merely verbal ruling and would need to obtain a written ruling <br />on the matter. Hr reiterated that the City Attorney had said that, if the boathouse were to be <br />placed on a new foundation, it would lose its grandfathered status. In Gaffron’s opinion; <br />however, the restoration had gone further than cosmetic or maintenance requirements. <br />Rahn stated that the pictures submitted by the applicant do support that the foundation is <br />the original foundation. <br />Given the wish of people to maintain these structures, Gaffron stated that the City needs to <br />take a closer look at the ordinance. <br />Chair Smith asked if the existing documentation supports what the applicant has done and <br />what distinguishes it from other applications. <br />Gaffron felt this to be a tough question, in the applicants favor, Gaffron acknowledged that <br />they have the documentation to support the work being done to the building. Until that <br />meeting, Gaffron was convinced that this was new construction, and had since been proven <br />untrue. He questioned the value of the labor to do the work. <br />Hawn stated that it seemed there was no variance necessary for the application if the <br />Commission supports the original approval. She believed the application would be far <br />cleaner if they did not make it a variance application. <br />Gaffron agreed, stating that if the Commission believed the work was not structural in <br />nature, they did have the City Attorney’s support. <br />Hawn stated that they are bound by the City Attorney’s comment and should support <br />what’s been done. <br />PAGE 28 of 31