07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WHEREAS, the contractor proceeded to reconstruct the post and beam foundation of the structure, re-using the pre-existing posts and beams but reconfiguring them in a manner to provide a more stable foundation for the structure; and WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of the foundation is considered as a structural alteration to the boathouse; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(A) allow the continuation of a nonconforming structure as long as it is not expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(B) limit the structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over its life to not exceed 50 percent of its value at the time the structure became nonconforming; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(E) prohibit the reconstruction of any nonconforming structure which has been destroyed to an extent of 50% or more of its assessed value, except in conformity with the provisions of Section 10.55; and W'HEREAS, the City has determined that the boathouse became nonconforming on January 1, 1975 and had an estimated value at that time of approximately $1,200; and WHEREAS, the value of the work done by the contractor in relation to the foundation of the boathouse was declared by the applicant to be $505, as wimessed by an invoice for such work presented by the applicant at the July 14,2003 Council meeting. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. The City Council finds that the boathouse was not expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way which would increase its nonconformity. 2. The City Council finds that the boathouse by virtue of its temporary relocation during renovation was not ‘destroyed ’ as that term is used in 10.55, Subd. 26(E). Page 2 of 4 jMl i inii'itrfM A __■■ t