06/16/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 #03-2909 PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TOM MCGLYNN, Continued) Boeder explained that the survey reflected the post dimensions and that the two northerly posts were pulled out entirely, and the building would be cantilevered out. Bremer maintained that, if the City Attorney has made the statement that it is okay to put the boathouse back on its original foundation and maintain its grandfathered status, and Lyle Oman has said it is the original foundation, then the point is moot and she would be in support of this application. Boeder repeated that the posts and beams are original, and that he went to great lengths to confirm this with the builder and the workers to ensure he would have people to testify to this. Rahn questioned why the patio doors exist at the end of the building with no where to go. McGlynn stated that they were included in the original plans and often times they fish or swim from these doors. Gaffron read the ordinance and acknowledged the need to determine the difference between structural change and cosmetic or maintenance needs. He noted that the ordinance does address the value of the improvement being less than 50% of the entire value of the structure. He indicated that both would be difficult to determine. Bremer stated that it made little sense why the work was halted, since the applicants had the right to do what was approved. If the Commission follows the City Attorney reading of the application and the material is old material, Bremer reiterated that the applicants request should be supported. She recognized the need to revisit the ordinance and consider a code change. Gaffron indicated that, upon his initial visit, his conclusion was that the foundation was new material, thus, the reason for it being on the agenda. Since that time, the foundation has been found to be old material. Boeder indicated that, prior to restoration, Oman had said the structure was in fairly good shape and would be there for awhile even without repair. He agreed that, if the intent of the City is to do away with all of these structure by the water, the code does not say that. Mabusth asked if the Attorney had submitted any ruling in writing to this application. Gaffron stated that he had merely verbal ruling and would need to obtain a written ruling on the matter. He reiterated that the City Attorney had said that, if the boathouse were to be placed on a new foundation, it would lose its grandfathered status. In Gaffron's opinion; however, the restoration had gone further than cosmetic or maintenance requirements. Page 19 of 22