My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 <br />( #5 - #2264 Janet Kiernan - Continued) <br />Jabbour said the Council is familiar with the site and that the applicant has diligently <br />worked with the City. He noted, when Council had previously discussed the application, <br />that Council Member Kelley had felt the footings should be inspected and certified prior <br />to consideration of the variance application to determine their condition. Jabbour had <br />thought it would be a burden to the applicant to have to determine the soundness of the <br />foundation. Based on that information, the resolution approving the variances was <br />adopted. Jabbour said that technically, the construction is now starting from scratch as a <br />vacant parcel and could not be allowed lower standards than required of new <br />construction. <br />Christy said he understood that what is remaining is as it is but it is due primarily <br />because of directives from the building inspector. He said it seems that this furthers the <br />hardship for the applicant as all of the plans to save portions of the existing building <br />proved futile. <br />Jabbour said the building inspector is responsible to adhere to universal building codes <br />and the two are not mutually exclusive. <br />Christy asked what alternatives could be explored. <br />Kelley said he agreed with Jabbour that with the finding of bad soils or bad foundation, <br />the applicant should be required to adhere to zoning code ordinance. <br />Kiernan said the occurrences happened over 5 -6 steps where the building inspector came <br />out to the site and contractor was told of the situation and had asked what should be <br />done. She questioned why it was allowed to get to this point where the framing and <br />footings are in and not determined in earlier steps. <br />Gaffron recharacterized what he thought took place. He said he understood the building <br />contractor asked the inspector to come out and look at questionable areas and was told <br />they should be removed. This occurred without zoning staff involvement. Gaffron said <br />he visited the site last month where he felt the structural removals were at the point <br />where he was barely comfortable that it conformed with the conditions of the resolution, <br />but the project got to the point of needing additional removals putting it out of zoning <br />conformity. <br />Jabbour asked if the building inspector was aware of the 40% structure remaining <br />criteria. Gaffron said he was. He said it was a question of wearing a zoning hat versus a <br />building inspector hat. He said he told the building official last Thursday, 12/4/97, that <br />the work had to be stopped as it was past the point of meeting the findings and <br />conditions of the resolution. <br />Ll <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.