Laserfiche WebLink
From: Thomas Crosby [mailto:tcrosby@tcrosbylaw.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:16 AM <br /> To: Mike Gaffron <br /> Cc: 'William McGuire' <br /> Subject: FW: 190 Orono Orchard Rd <br /> Mike: Bill and I have discussed alternatives for the property he now owns at 190 Orono Orchard Road. I am aware that <br /> he has had discussions with your office as well. <br /> Bill is more than willing to demolish the house, perhaps leaving the foundation cement in place, but needs some <br /> assurance that he could reconstruct using the existing foundation location. I will forward to you a survey showing the <br /> building pad of essentially 41 x 46 recognizing current Orono regulations. That building pad is too small for a residence <br /> in this neighborhood if the pad needs to accommodate a garage as I understand is the case. <br /> A specific proposal: <br /> 1. The McGuires would demolish the house, would fill in the basement but would leave sufficient evidence of the <br /> existing foundation so that it could be located in the future. <br /> 2. They would agree that, if they constructed a new residence on the property in a 15 year period,they would do <br /> so on the site of the current foundation together with the 41 X 46 pad described above. If they did not build in <br /> that period,they would relinquish their rights to build on the current foundation site. <br /> 3. The City would agree now to the procedure set forth in 2 above. I am aware of City correspondence stating a <br /> reluctance to so agree but do not believe the prior discussions had the detail on the building pad or the time <br /> period. <br /> The McGuires have investigated the costs of making the house habitable but believe that the required expenses would <br /> push the total investment in the property well over what would be realized in the market. Among other things, the <br /> house is of a former era and not attractive to today's market. <br /> Why would the City agree to such a program: <br /> -gets rid of an unsightly house, <br /> -does not set a dangerous City precedent because the property is not on a waterfront and because the house is, <br /> essentially, unfit for habitation, <br /> -hardships are created by the lot and wetland configuration, and <br /> -the time limit for use of the existing foundation gives the City protection that this condition will not go on forever. <br /> From: William McGuire [mailto:wwmcguire@gmail.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:16 AM <br /> To: Thomas Crosby <br /> Subject: Fwd: 190 Orono Orchard Rd <br /> FYI. This pushes the issue we discussed yesterday. <br /> Bill <br /> Begin forwarded message: <br /> 3 <br />