01-22-03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,January 22, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#4) #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE,2817 CASCO POINT ROAD,PLAN REVISIONS 7:19-7:45 P.M. Wesley Byrne,the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot area/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation would remain, without structural repairs. Gaffron felt that during the February 2002 review, it was not clear that the plan as approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet. Gaffron continued that a condition of the approval was that if it was determined the existing foundation was required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals would be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. After being issued a building permit in June of 2002,the building inspector only recently noted that while the additions were progressing, the second story of the residence has now been completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Furthermore, Gaffron noted the inspection department questioned the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story wall with substandard setback, to which the applicant has hired a structural engineer to review the situation. Gaffron pointed out that replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. In addition,the removal of portions of the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation,triggers the need for further City review. Gaffron questioned whether the remodeling/addition process has resulted in removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild,requiring all setbacks to be met. He also questioned whether allowing the second story to be put back in the substandard setback should be an option at all. Byrne stated that his intent from the beginning has been to work with City staff. He acknowledged that, in hindsight,he should have considered bulldozing the entire home and started fresh, as many new issues continue to arise. The structural engineer looked at and discovered some obvious rot issues and repair work that needed to be done. At this point,Mr. Byrne asked the Commission to grant him a setback variance, as it would be very costly to change the design now. Had he realized this a year ago,Byrne stated he would have designed the home differently. Chair Smith noted that the February 2002 Minutes address the need to readdress the foundation issue at a later date if it became an issue. Byrne reiterated that had he known the foundation would become an issue he would have done things differently. Rahn was surprised that the foundation stability had not been addressed earlier,prior to or during construction. He stated that, in his view, this project is a rebuild and was a rebuild from the start. The only thing he was not clear on was the need for a raised roof,which he felt, further encroached into the side setback by massing the encroachment. PAGE 5 of 29