12-11-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; k '■ ■i“r/If-‘ti ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 27,2000 (U6) Edward and Carol Callahan, 2545 North Shore Drive - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Continued replacement of the rafters and roof. Without knowing the condition of the building prior to the storm, it would be difficult to determine if total replacement would have been required. Jabbour asked if the hole in the roof from the storm could have accelerated deterioration of the rafters. W'einberger responded that it could be argued that it would have. Kelley questioned if the building inspector had looked at the structure to determine that it needed total replacement. Weinberger responded that both the building inspector and the contractor who drew up the plans were under the understanding that the entire building would be replaced, with the exception of ihe slab below the structure. Kelley did not feel the Council should disagree with the determination of the building inspector. Flint asked why the appeal process was part of the code if the Council shouldn’t disagree with opinions of the building inspector. Kelley stated his position was to accept the building inspector ’s opinion. Sansevere asked if it was clear that the building inspector determined that 75% of the structure could not be salvaged. He questioned if salvaging part of the structure had been considered. Weinberger replied that the visual inspection and conversations with Callahan had lead to the understanding that the entire building would be replaced. He added that if it could be determined that 25% of the structure could be salvaged, it might fall under the interim building permit procedures for storm damage. Jabbour noted that in his opinion it is easier to rebuild the structure rather that repair it, and the contractor may have had a similar opinion. Kelley asked wh>’ Callahan would want to save any part of the structure. Sansevere replied that there was no other option. Kelley commented that a few years later the beams would need to be replaced. Jabbour suggested that Callahan discuss with his contractor the possibility of saving the front portion of the building. He added that if the application was not the result of the May 1998 and 25% of the structure could not be salvaged, the building permit should not be approved. Callahan felt that the front and slab would constitute 25% of the structure sii.ee most of the rest of the structure is screening. Peterson asked if a cement slab had ever been considered as part of the percentage for construction. Jabbour commented that the floor/slab is acting as a foundation, and would be considered as part of construction. ■A uiiiii I atiir-r fAftiM j