Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, June 16, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#8 #03-2909 PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TOM MCGLYNN, <br /> Continued) <br /> Gaffron shared the background related to the application, stating that the existing house on this <br /> property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in the 0-75' <br /> zone. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a <br /> structure,perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City's 1955 airphotos at this exact location) <br /> and that boathouse was shown on the survey when the new home was built. <br /> Gaffron explained that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and <br /> their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and <br /> determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely <br /> maintenance, in a few respects structural, and some of the work was considered to be expansion. <br /> The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be <br /> approved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the <br /> extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at <br /> $20,000. <br /> Gaffron stated that the City assumed that the building would remain in place during the <br /> restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, <br /> would not be allowed, and would far exceed `50% of the structure's value at the time it became <br /> non-conforming' which the City had long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75' setback <br /> ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely less than $500, although it does not <br /> appear as a separate entry on assessor's records. <br /> Gaffron maintained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such <br /> lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new <br /> accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make <br /> major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that <br /> the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing <br /> approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had <br /> replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which consisted of massive posts sunk into the <br /> ground with massive beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. <br /> Gaffron reported that staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure <br /> had lost any `legal non-conforming' status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion <br /> was that if it was placed back on the original foundation(which was now laying in pieces on the <br /> ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status,but the new foundation clearly would be <br /> `structural alteration' and undoubtedly exceed 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. <br /> Gaffron explained that the applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for an <br /> after-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the 0-75' <br /> zone. Gaffron noted that visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely <br /> within the floodplain and subject to floodplain regulations. <br /> Page 17 of 22 <br />