My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/16/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
06/16/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:47:48 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:47:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 /> Boeder explained that the survey reflected the post dimensions and that the two northerly posts <br /> were pulled out entirely, and the building would be cantilevered out. <br /> Bremer maintained that, if the City Attorney has made the statement that it is okay to put the <br /> boathouse back on its original foundation and maintain its grandfathered status, and Lyle Oman <br /> has said it is the original foundation, then the point is moot and she would be in support of this <br /> application. <br /> Boeder repeated that the posts and beams are original, and that he went to great lengths to <br /> confirm this with the builder and the workers to ensure he would have people to testify to this. <br /> Rahn questioned why the patio doors exist at the end of the building with no where to go. <br /> McGlynn stated that they were included in the original plans and often times they fish or swim <br /> from these doors. <br /> Gaffron read the ordinance and acknowledged the need to determine the difference between <br /> structural change and cosmetic or maintenance needs. He noted that the ordinance does address <br /> the value of the improvement being less than 50% of the entire value of the structure. He <br /> indicated that both would be difficult to determine. <br /> Bremer stated that it made little sense why the work was halted, since the applicants had the right <br /> to do what was approved. If the Commission follows the City Attorney reading of the application <br /> and the material is old material, Bremer reiterated that the applicants request should be <br /> supported. She recognized the need to revisit the ordinance and consider a code change. <br /> Gaffron indicated that, upon his initial visit, his conclusion was that the foundation was new <br /> material, thus, the reason for it being on the agenda. Since that time, the foundation has been <br /> found to be old material. <br /> Boeder indicated that, prior to restoration, Oman had said the structure was in fairly good shape <br /> and would be there for awhile even without repair. He agreed that, if the intent of the City is to <br /> do away with all of these structure by the water, the code does not say that. <br /> Mabusth asked if the Attorney had submitted any ruling in writing to this application. <br /> Gaffron stated that he had merely verbal ruling and would need to obtain a written ruling on the <br /> matter. He reiterated that the City Attorney had said that, if the boathouse were to be placed on a <br /> new foundation, it would lose its grandfathered status. In Gaffron's opinion; however, the <br /> restoration had gone further than cosmetic or maintenance requirements. <br /> Page 19 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.