Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JUNE 14,1999 <br />• ( #8) #2447 KIRT WOODHOUSE, 885 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCE - <br />Continued <br />Woodhouse said this plan results in less mass for the house. <br />Gaffron asked for specific direction on the number of courses of foundation the applicant will <br />be allowed to remove before they will be ordered to stop work. <br />Jabbour said if he has to remove more than three courses for structural purposes, not for <br />lowering the building, other than the area that he is totally eliminating, he will have to make a <br />new application. He said the mass and height of the building must not exceed what is being <br />proposed because this is different than the original application. <br />Flint said this proposal is better than the previous proposal. <br />Kelley asked what the definition is of a substantial taking of a house. He thinks more than <br />80% of the value of the home is being replaced. He feels that a substantial taking is anything <br />over the majority and that's what this is. <br />Gaffron said there is no threshold defined for when it changes from a remodel to replacement. <br />Kelley said there is substantial hardship because of the topography of the lot. He just doesn't <br />• want to see applicants ask for multiple variances. <br />9 <br />Jabbour moved, Sansevere seconded, a motion, based on the present proposal, that <br />complete removal of the house meets the intent of the approval granted in the resolution <br />adopted by the Council on January 15, 1999 with the understanding that if more than <br />three courses of foundation, except for the area where the applicant wishes to set the <br />house further away from the lake, are replaced for structural purposes, that the <br />applicant will file a new Land Use Application to relocate the house and the Building <br />Inspector will not allow any further work. <br />Kelley asked what happens if it is the footings that cannot support the weight and must be <br />replaced, but not the wall. <br />Jabbour said they would have to make a new application. He pointed out to the applicant that <br />he is taking a risk by proceeding based on the Council's action. <br />VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1. (Kelley objected.) <br />Page 11 <br />