07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. #03-2909 Plekkcapol Builders lac. oo behalf of Tom McGlynn, Coatlaued) 3. 4. Staff has not seen convincing evidence that the structure has been or will be changed in a manner that substantially reduces its potential for flood damage, and therefore staff concludes the exemption in 10.55 Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff concludes that the variance process is the only method via which the structure should be allowed to be replaced back into its former location. GafBron maintained that the Plaiming Commission did not act on the merits of the variance application or define any hardships; they simply chose to conclude a variance was not required. Therefore, if Council concludes that a variance is necessary, the application could be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Gafffon reiterated that the City has failed to be consistent on these types of rulings over the past years and staff would appreciate direction for lumre clarification. Attorney Boeder, on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, asked to make some clarifications to the presentation made by Gaffron. To begin, Mr. Boeder explained that the McGlynns went through the permit process in the summer of2002 with the intent to restore the boathouse, built originally in the 1940 ’s. Building Inspector Oman indicated that the boathouse was in excellent shape and worth pn^erving, not a tear-down. After obtaining permits in March of 2003, work began on the installation of insulation and plywood. Plekkenpol recognized the danger involved in working in water with power tools for their people and that the only reasonable way to do the work was to lift the boathouse up. Since the new pressed lumber foundation was constructed in the 1980's and in good repair, the contractor was under the impression that the foundation could be pulled out and inspected. Boeder pointed out that Oman was present during this inspection process when the posts were pulled out and can attest that these are original posts. Boeder felt it relevant to clear up the misconception that these posts were new, he maintained that they reused the original pieces. With regard to the City’s intent to see all boat houses disappear by attrition, Boeder argued that the Ordinance or code does not reflect this sentiment. He maintained that Mr. McGlynn had gone thru the proper process, had permitted work going on, when he was stopped. Boeder stated that the City’s expectations are not enforceable when a pemiit has been issued and no ordinance supports those expectations. With regard to the 1970's value of the boathouse, Boeder stated that there is no hard evidence to base its value and questioned how anyone could make judgments to that effect today. He referred to comments made by Planning Commissioner Rahn, an inspector himself, stating that he understood the concept of raising the boathouse structure and the values assigned the project, including minor alterations. PAGEIOOF21 J