07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.in. (7. II03<2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behnlf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Boeder explained that two lakeside posts were removed entirely and the building was to be cantil?* ered over the water. Boeder disagreed with staff s perspective that 10.55 Subdivision 26B doesn’t apply. In fact, Boeder maintained that the 50% Rule should tqiply and presented a bill from the contractor for $505 for brackets and supplies. In addition, since the beams as reconstructed would be above flood level, this which would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. Furthermore, Boeder pointed out that it was not the intent of the applicant to ’destroy ’ the boathouse, rather to restore and remodel the structure. Unlike the Erickson Resolution GafTron referred to, Boeder stated that McGlynn pulled the appropriate permits to do the restoration work and went thru the appropriate process. He maintained that these are not after-the-fact variance requests on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, as they were in the Erickson case. Boeder stated that their position remains the same, that a variance is not needed, the use has not changed, the structure has not been enlarged, and the same materials are being used. He pointed out that it is diflicult for contractors to distinguish between structural and nonstructural work based on the code, in their opinion, maintenance of the foundation should not be considered structural. Sansevere questioned what phase of completion the McGlynn ’s were in when forced to stop work. Boeder stated that all that remains is painting and installation of French doors. Boeder stated that the entire restoration project was estimated at a cost of $20,000; whereas, the foundation work was just a mere $505 of that bill. Having visited the site, Murphy acknowledged his preference for keeping the old lakeshore buildings. As a homeowner with a nonconforming bam and shed in need of floor repair work, which to be done right, the structures should be lifted off their foundation. He had difficulty supporting staff s notion that the structure not be moved. He recognized the contractor’s need to ensure the safety of his workers. Gaflron maintained that lifting a structure off a foundation should be viewed differently than moving it entirely off its foundation. Murphy did not understand the difference if the structure was returning to the same place. Gaflron pointed out that once the nonconforming structure has been moved off of its original foundation, the City has an opportunity to relocate or encourage the applicant to move it to a PAGE It OF21