10-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#02-28SS - 2659 Casco Point Road October 17,2003 Page 3 Deck Nonconformities The deck that was replaced is attached to a 12'x22' accessory building located 5' from the shoreline and nearly abutting the side lot line. The accessory building has been there for many years and has apparently been maintained in relatively good condition. The deck extending from the end of the building towards the shore was replaced by the applicant in April 2001, per applicant’s statement, because the old deck was rotting away. The City has no record of the pre-existing deck, either on old sur\ cys or in the assessors records. The January 1992 photo submitted by the applicant shows a deck at this location, although the deck in that picture appears to be not as deep as the new deck, and is perhaps 6’ x 12’ rather than 8' x 12'. The old deck had posts at the perimeter, the new deck is cantilevered 2* past the posts, and extends over the water. The deck is located less than one foot from the side lot line. City code would generally not allow an accessory deck with a railing to be less than 1 O' from a side lot line. The neighbors have indicated they are aware of the construction. The deck as it exists today comprises approximately 100 s.f of hardcover including the steps to it. Part of this hardcover is over the lake. Cit>- code allows no hardcover or strucuires within 75* of the shoreline, except for one 4' wide stairway; a lift; landings of no greater than 32 s.f.; and lock boxes. Total existing hardcover in the applicants 0-75' zone is 16.24?^o, consisting of: Accessory Building 22.1' x 12.1' Concrete slab adjacent to building (Approx 12x18) Retaining Walls Stone walkway and landing Deck at shore incl steps (portion over land) Stone & wood borders 267 s.f. 208 s.f. 87 s.f. 71 s.f. 84 s.f. 27 s.f. 749 s.f.. 4580 = 16.24% Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in his letter of request (Exhibit B), and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in th e surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for wianees from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship beemuse ofcircumstanees unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such aettons wOl be In keeping with Ae spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code.