Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> After identifying 6 issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends that the <br /> variances be denied, on the basis that this structure has been removed and should no longer retain <br /> its status as an existing non-conforming structure. Had the structure remained in place and the <br /> foundation work been accomplished without its removal and with the proper permits, it might <br /> have qualified as an exception. But, Gaffron believed the foundation work was done without <br /> permits and moved 50' away to be restored. He argued that it was moved off its grandfathered <br /> location and should be granted no further nonconforming structure status; therefore, the new <br /> foundation work should be removed and the structure removed from the property, or relocated on <br /> the site to a conforming location. <br /> Boeder stated that permits were issued and work red tagged. After consulting with the City <br /> Attorney, Boeder stated that he agreed it would need to be moved in order to place the plywood <br /> sheeting; however, it would be incorrect to call the foundation new material, as the old posts <br /> were used. Boeder pointed out that Lyle Oman, building inspector himself, had concluded that <br /> this was old material, not new as Gaffron reported. <br /> Boeder read definitions of demolition and destroying, which did not match the restoration effort <br /> they were involved in. He reiterated that it would be inaccurate to call this a new foundation, <br /> and place the boathouse on the mud, since the boathouse never sat on the mud in the past and <br /> should not be required to do so now. Boeder cited letters from neighbors in support of the <br /> application and stated that it was difficult to even locate where the sightlines of the owner who <br /> had objected were in the first place. <br /> Chair Smith asked whether the posts and beams were old or new. <br /> Boeder stated the material was old material and merely new brackets and bolts were used to <br /> support the material. <br /> McGlynn explained that the builder had to move the boathouse from the foundation in order to <br /> place the sheeting. He pointed out that the builder refused to put his workers at risk working with <br /> power tools in the water for safety sake. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the intent was always to put the boathouse back and whether anything was <br /> done differently than originally presented. <br /> Boeder indicated that the building was the same size and windows were added as allowed by the <br /> original plans. <br /> Rahn asked why the dimensions differed on the survey from 20X12' to 14X12'. <br /> Page 18 of 22 <br />