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 felt this would be acceptable, stating the more information that could be provided,the more <br /> comfortable he would be with the application. <br /> After submitting plans to the City and being given one set of directions, Hannaford reiterated that it was <br /> unfair of the Commission to be giving the applicant an entirely new set of directions. <br /> Thompson stated that what the Commission is asking will cost a great deal for him, in that,he would need <br /> to obtain a second set of drawings from a builder. Since there was no law reflecting a number or <br /> threshold whereby he could base his design, Thompson felt it was unfair to base his application on a <br /> feeling of the Commission. <br /> Gaffron indicated that staff could not look at something and decide if they were comfortable with it when <br /> there were no numbers or code to back it up legally. He encouraged the Commission to pass what they <br /> would be most comfortable with tonight and allow staff to review the structural engineer report and demo <br /> plan. <br /> Zugschwert maintained that, legally,the application would need to be considered a remodel since no <br /> numbers or code exists stating otherwise. <br /> Mabusth would support the application as long as no changes were made within 30' of the corner. <br /> Retterath stated that the applicant requests approval for his original submittal. <br /> Gaffron cautioned the applicant that, although the Commission may be prepared to approve the <br /> application,the applicant might be back in 6-9 months. <br /> Thompson stated that, unfortunately,his house may become the focus of this ongoing debate the <br /> Commission has been having a long time. <br /> Retterath reiterated that it is not common to have to deal with Commissioner's and City's feelings and <br /> comfort levels versus defined numbers and codes. <br /> Zugschwert reiterated that the Commission would need to hash through the issues of remodel versus new <br /> construction another time. <br /> Rahn still felt the application should be tabled pending staff review of the demo plan. <br /> Retterath repeated that the structural engineer determined that the house would have uniform loading on <br /> the perimeter, with only a concentrated load point requiring additional shoring up. <br /> Rahn questioned what `shoring up' was exactly. <br /> Gaffron reiterated that the building officials can review the reports and verbalize any reservations to staff, <br /> however, without a threshold a thorough job of evaluating the proposal cannot go any further. <br /> PAGE 25 of 29 <br />