07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03-2909 PIckkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) inconsistent with the way the City has historically treated similar applications for repair/replacement of lakeshore accessory structures. SUIT Perspective - Gaffron expanded on the questions he raised earlier: 1. Foundation Alterations The first issue to resolve was whether the foundation had been altered. Staff believes it had been extensively altered. Staff believed the foundation had been altered as follows: a) The pre-existing beams were unbolted from the sides of the posts and set aside. b) Most if not all of the pre-existing posts were pulled out of the ground (See photos). c) New postholes were dug, Sono Tubes were installed for some of the posts. d) The old posts were placed into the tubes or holes which were then filled with aggregate to provide stability to the posts. It is unknown whether a concrete pad at a 42" depth was placed; however, such a footing would have been required by building code for a legal foundation replacement. e) The pre-existing beams were then placed on top of the posts rather than alongside them and were held in place by brackets rather than through-bolts. Gaffron stated that it is staffs opinion that the foundation as it had previously existed was in fact totally removed, and a new foundation was constructed with a combination of old and new materials in a configuration different than the old foundation. Has it been altered in ways that increase its non-conformity? The building is nonconforming as to location, which is not proposed to change. The building will not increase in size. But it will, as a result of the reconstruction of the foundation, have the potential to remain in place as a nonconforming structure for a much longer period of time. This might be considered as an increase in nonconformity. Gaffron maintained that the actions taken by applicant's contractors are absolutely consistent with what staff has long considered as structural alterations or additions. We have consistently told people that cosmetic improvements such as re-siding or reroofing are allowed but that structural improvements are not. The work that is listed above clearly is considered as structural improvement. 2. Does Structural Alteration Exceed 5(P/o of 1975 Value?. The second issue to resolve is whether the extent of structural alterations was more than 50% of the structure's value at the time it became nonconforming (1975). Staff believes the value of the structural alterations does exceed the 1975 value of the structure. The mere value of the labor involved in the construction of the new foundation probably exceeds the value of the structure in 1975. *• PAGE 7 OF 21 #