12-11-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nv'' iii' I I' 'i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (#6) Edward and Carol Callahan^ 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued company and contractors to complete their work. He also needed to *-et a sur\ ey for the building permit application. Kelley asked why the building was being repaired. Callahan respv^jtded that he was getting ready to sell and it needed to be repaired. Sansevere asked if the City would require Callahan to remove the structure if he withdrew his building permit application. Weinberger resi^unded that the City would not require its removal. Sansevere stated the building was an eyesore as it stands and he would prefer to see an extension of the 2-year period for everyone. Weinberger stated that the 2-year period is not a deadline and that the staff memo has referred to the length of time that has elapsed since the damage. Sansevere commented that if views from Ae lake are a concern, he would prefer to see the building replaced rather than remain as an eyesore. Jabbour stated that he would be willing to approve the appeal if Callahan could demonstrate that 25% of the structure would remain. Sansevere questioned why the slab would not be considered part of the structure. Jabbour asked Callahan if there was a way that he could keep 25% of the structure. Callahan responded that he would like to keep the front since it has electrical and telephone wiring, and he would certainly keep the floor. Jabbour stated it was his opinion that 25% of the structure must be kept, and that keeping the front with wiring and slab would constitute 25% of the value, which is following the interim building permit procedures for storm damage from the May 1998 storm. Jabbour indicated he would not approve a building permit if the building was totally replaced. Callahan commented that he did not want to spend money needlessly, and felt that keeping the front part of the structure would be possible. Peterson asked Gaffron about structures along the lakeshore and having a value regarding building repairs. Gaffron responded that the 1975 code had a provision regarding non- conforming structures in the 0-75’ setback. It allowed structural repairs up to 50% of its value at the time it became non-conforming. The City has consistently used 1975 as the date that such types of structures became non-conforming. Peterson asked how staff would have responded to a building permit request prior to the 1998 storm. Weinberger replied that general cosmetic repairs like re-siding and re-roofing are generally allowed. Before shingles could be replaced, the rafters would have to be in good condition. The support structures w ould have been review ed to see if they could handle « ................... ^TiriMiiiiii>iiBi anTi ■■ inT^rriltnnii'ti-ii I i fir an