11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L FILEM3-2950 November 7.2003 Page 2 of 6 between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property. (2) Side, 30 feet minimum and not within the required side yard area. (3) Rear. 30 feet minimum and not within the required rear vard area (50' in theRR-lB). (Code 1984, § I0.03(14)(D)) List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. E.\isting & Proposed Sur\ey/Site Plan D. Submitted Plans and Elevations E. Letters from City Staff F. Alternative location for sport court meeting setbacks G. Sport Court Contract H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map J. Photos Background In June 2003, the applicants were notified by a lener (Exhibit El) from Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was required for their newly constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified that the sport court did not meet the required 30' side setback as it was placed less than 6' from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height restrictions. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work conducted on their property. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court, which the applicants signed, placing the responsibility for obtaining permits upon the property owner (Exhibit G). In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to remove the 2380 s.f. sport court as no permit had been applied for nor did it meet required setbacks. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport court and applied for an after-the-fact variance. A lener from Planning Director, Mike Gaffron. dated September 10, 2003, informed the applicants that their variance application was incomplete pending submittal of several items. That letter, attached as Exhibit E2, gave the applicants a deadline of October 1. 2003 in order to remain on the October Planning Commission agenda. The deadline for the October meeting passed w ithout submittal of the required materials and therefore the application dropped off the October agenda. Because this was an after- the-lact application, Stalf did not want the issue to be overlooked and sent a letter to the applicants (attached Exhibit E3) requiring submittal of the materials by November 1, 2003 or removal of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action by the City. At that time. Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into compfiance with J