07-14-2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) structure would have caught his attention. Gaffron questioned how the windows changed from the original submittals. Boeder assured the Council that Oman was aware of the window change and supplied the Council with a change order initialed and faxed back and forth between the contractor and Oman with regard to the windows. With regard to the post holes being redug, Boeder stated that once the posts were pulled to be looked at, the holes filled in, thus necessitating the need to redig them. White stated that the City accepted the $20,000 building permit from the beginning and now the Council needs to determine whether the building stays or goes. Based on a broad interpretation, Sansevere pointed out that the floor was not removed; therefore, questioned whether they could use this as part of the findings to support the work. Gaffron stated that the floor would be viewed as absolutely inseparable from the foundation and • posts. Murphy had difficulty accepting that through benign neglect the City should see boathouses disappear entirely. Gaffron stated that based on 1992 and 1995 Shoreland and DNR codes, we do not allow structures in the shoreland district and limit the structural alteration to items located in the 0 -75' setback zone. He maintained that, due to requests like this, the City needs to carefully analyze the codes and create some consistency in their evaluation. Sansevere questioned whether the hardship could be the improved drainage condition gained by setting the building up 6" on the posts and joists to decrease the flooding potential. He commented that several Council members would like to see this be allowed, and asked staff to help them find a way to approve it. Planning Commissioner Hawn outlined the Commission's discussion as follows. Although they were similarly confused, the Planning Commission relied on the fact that the building permit was granted, and that it was their understanding that Attorney Barrett had rendered an opinion that moving the building to one side for safety reasons would not constitute a problem to it being placed back again; therefore, the Commission found the need for the variance null and void. Hawn stated that based on the fact that the materials were not new, they felt no variance was necessary, or it would have been denied. PAGE 13 OF 21