My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: variance/minutes, memos, etc
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
T
>
Tonkawa Road
>
1220 Tonkawa Road - 08-117-23-42-0001
>
Correspondence
>
Re: variance/minutes, memos, etc
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:47:16 PM
Creation date
6/26/2019 9:13:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1220
Street Name
Tonkawa
Street Type
Road
Address
1220 Tonkawa Rd
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
0811723420001
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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).
View images
View plain text
lvDffTEs of THE REGULAR <br /> oRONO CITY COUNCIL <br /> MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 1995 <br /> (94 -42449 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson - Continued) <br /> Jabbour inquired what the applicant would be allowed to repair on the deck if the <br /> recommendation was not approved, noting that the current railing <br /> does not meet code. <br /> Gaffron said boards could be replaced without a variance. The question is at what level <br /> p <br /> of replacement a variance is needed. If a deck is totally removed, it would require a <br /> variance to rebuild it. The City would likely approve a variance required to maintain the <br /> safety of an existing deck <br /> - <br /> M, <br /> Jabbour asked if the change from a window to a walkout door requires a variance. <br /> Gaffron said the variance, as well as a conditional use permit, is required because of the <br /> excavation. <br /> Hurr said she was concerned with the decks encroachment on the Lakeshore. The <br /> applicant noted that if the deck was asked to be removed, he would not proceed with the <br /> other proposed projects. Hurr said, even if the applicant would not proceed with the <br /> other improvements, she could not support the lakeshore deck remaining. Hurr was in <br /> support of the other recommended projects;though, she did voice some concern of the <br /> excavation. <br /> Goetten said she <br /> was also concerned with setting a precedent by allowing excavation for <br /> a walkout and would not support it. She emphasized the majority of the home being <br /> within the 4-75'zone. Goetten said she would support the screened porch and deck but <br /> not the deck at the lakeside. <br /> i <br /> Jabbour said he takes a more realistic approach to the application. He noted that the <br /> deck is already there and would be rebuilt. The screened porch would be over and above <br /> a patio, which is hardcover anyways. Jabbour saw the tradeoffs as substantial to the <br /> goals of the Ci the property has been extensively cleaned up. He saw the removal of <br /> the rock areas, driveway to the lake, and two sheds as major contributions to hardcover <br /> removal and 99% of what the City would like removed. Jabbour said he would not <br /> support the boulder walls unless they were to stabilize the ground. He did support the <br /> walkout. <br /> Kelley asked about the condition of the deck at the lakeside. Gaffron said he has seen it <br /> but not walked on it. The applicant said it was in good shape. Kelley asked Gaffron how <br /> much repair could be done to this deck. Gaffron said structural repairs could be allowed <br /> up to a value of 50% of the value at the time the deck became nonconforming, probably <br /> in 1975. He was not aware if the deck was there at that time nor whether its value had <br /> been established. The applicant said the house was built in 1970. Kelley asked if a <br /> grading plan had been presented at that time. Gaffron said probably not. The applicant <br /> said he has the original plans. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.