03-28-2005 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 28, 2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #04 -3066. WILLIAM AND ANITA ROUSE, 4051 MGHWOOD ROAD — REVIEW; REMODEL VS REBUILD STATUS Gaffron explained that the applicant's entire home was being remodeled with a new half story being added above the newer east wing, when it was determined that the foundation under the west wing was in unacceptable condition and must be replaced. As a result, the extent of the removals along the west lot line will exceed the extent anticipated during the variance review, which begs the question whether the project should be considered a rebuild and be required to meet the 10' setback. While the Planning Commission spent considerable time discussing as to whether the intended extent of construction should be considered a remodel or rebuild, Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission concluded that the removals did not appear to quite rise to the level of a total rebuild and the variance was granted. Since it is now obvious that the existing foundation of the west wing is virtually worthless and beyond repair, other options must be considered, such as constructing a new foundation within the existing foundation and cantilevering support to the perimeter walls. Gaffron stated that staff stopped the job in order to review the project and reach a conclusion in the timeliest manner for the homeowner. • Gaffron noted that, although the property owner would like the City to allow his project to be completed within the envelope and setbacks as shown on the approved plans without having to redesign at this time, staff is requesting Council's confirmation that the project can go ahead as currently approved. However, if the Council concludes that the house should be redesigned to meet is setbacks, and that this is the time to eliminate the nonconformity rather than expand it and give it extended life, then the approvals should be reconsidered. Murphy stated that he had been the liaison to the Planning Commission meeting at which time they discussed this application at great length. Though the rear portion of the home and the perimeter walls stay, Gaffron questioned whether the new roof, removal of the floor, and unusable foundation put them beyond the 50% threshold for rebuild vs. remodel. Mr. Rouse stated that he had purchased the home in August, and at that time had examined his options, corning to the conclusion that the remodel was his best bet and that the foundation would be repaired as needed. Prior to construction, Rouse explained that he had invited two engineers to the site to evaluate the foundation and make their recommendations, neither of whom had anticipated the condition of the west foundation after demo began. He noted that the wall is 6 -10' from the property line at each corner, supports a load bearing wall, and contains a stone chimney which he wished to preserve. Rouse pointed out that the current foundation could be reinforced by tying in with a new structural foundation as one option where replacement is necessary. Murphy stated that if the foundation could be reinforced in the same location, he would continue to view it as a remodel. • PAGE 2 of 14 as