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 /> Rahn stated that the pictures submitted by the applicant do support that the foundation is the <br /> original foundation. <br /> Given the wish of people to maintain these structures, Gaffron stated that the City needs to take a <br /> closer look at the ordinance. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the existing documentation supports what the applicant has done and what <br /> distinguishes it from other applications. <br /> Gaffron felt this to be a tough question, in the applicants favor, Gaffron acknowledged that they <br /> have the documentation to support the work being done to the building. Until that meeting, <br /> Gaffron was convinced that this was new construction, and had since been proven untrue. He <br /> questioned the value of the labor to do the work. <br /> Hawn stated that it seemed there was no variance necessary for the application if the <br /> Commission supports the original approval. She believed the application would be far cleaner if <br /> they did not make it a variance application. <br /> Gaffron agreed, stating that if the Commission believed the work was not structural in nature, <br /> they did have the City Attorney's support. <br /> Hawn stated that they are bound by the City Attorney's comment and should support what's <br /> been done. <br /> Rahn pointed out that less than 50% of the piers were straightened, merely two were removed. <br /> Mabusth questioned whether this would be consistent with past applications. She felt that once <br /> the structure was moved from its foundation, it could be considered new construction. She <br /> believed the City should revise the current codes. <br /> Rahn stated that the code would need to be made more specific and that discussion should take <br /> place in a work session. He reiterated that the work that was performed to the structure was <br /> permitted, the building is being put back on the original foundation, with merely 25%pier <br /> improvement. <br /> Gaffron reminded the Commission that the regulatory flood protection elevation is 932.5'. <br /> Rahn stated that once it is put back on the piers, with the floors, the boathouse would likely be <br /> above floodplain. <br /> Page 20 of 22 <br />