Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday,January 22, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2861 ERIK THOMPSON,Continued) <br /> Rahn agreed, encouraging the applicant to consider new construction altogether. As indicated by the <br /> applicant earlier this evening, it may have been cheaper in the long run to have started over than try to <br /> remodel. Rahn feared this may the case in this situation as well. <br /> Thompson reiterated that he has gone to great lengths to examine his property to prepare for the remodel <br /> by allowing many experts to view his home and make recommendations. He asked the Commission to <br /> throw him some guidelines to work within and stated that he had heard the discussion earlier making <br /> reference to the `gray zone' of new construction versus rebuild. <br /> Hawn stated that, with new construction,he would be back to the 15% structural lot coverage requirement <br /> he is currently faced with. <br /> Chair Smith agreed that, as stated earlier by Gaffron,this application 'looks and feels' like more than was <br /> ever envisioned and asked for further staff comment. <br /> Gaffron stated that, the characteristics of an addition versus tearing everything down to the cap, all of a <br /> sudden sounds like well over the 50%the Commission had discussed in the past as the threshold for new <br /> construction. Originally,he had envisioned a first floor,with a second floor that would be torn off and <br /> replaced, as well as minor additions. Gaffron indicated that,now from what he heard, all that will be left <br /> is the den area and everything else torn down to the cap. At this point, the questions arise, with over 50% <br /> removal, do you have them move the home or remove the foundation that still has value. Gaffron felt <br /> these questions remain. <br /> Thompson argued that much of the first floor, including the bedroom and den, and its supporting walls, <br /> basement, and foundation would remain, therefore, this is not new construction,nor would new <br /> construction work in this neighborhood. <br /> Gaffron asked if the caps they referred to were those between the basement and first floor. <br /> Thompson indicated that they are talking about certain walls, which would need major reconstruction <br /> with the additions, whereas the floor panels would remain the same on the first floor. He pointed out that <br /> some of the walls are in need of repair currently, or would come down anyway, if he were required to <br /> merely shore them up that could be done also. Thompson maintained that more of the house is being left <br /> alone than they've been led to believe this evening, and financially remodeling is his best option. <br /> Chair Smith asked whether the application should be tabled for a month to allow the applicant time to <br /> consult with and assure staff that this is a remodel versus a rebuild. <br /> Gaffron felt this was unnecessary,he was not convinced they could be certain until the applicant got into <br /> the project whether it would remain a remodel or become more. Similar projects have become more once <br /> applicants have gotten into them and Gaffron indicated that he would rather know that the Planning <br /> Commission is comfortable with the fact that, if it gets to the point where they discover it is more,they <br /> can continue on. On the other hand, if they get to the point that all is left is a foundation and a cap, <br /> Gaffron questioned whether the Commission would want to revisit the application at that point versus <br /> dealing with it now. <br /> PAGE 21 of 29 <br />