12-08-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JTr- T n #02*2858 - 2659 Casco Poiot Road October 17,2003 Pages Deck Nonconformities The deck that was replaced is attached to a 12'x22' accessory building located S* 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 Ae end of the building towards the shore was replaced by the ^plicant 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 surveys 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 thai 1 O' fix>m a side lot line. The neighbors have indicated they are aware of the construction. The deck as it exists today comprises appicximaiely 100 s.f. of hardcover including the .«!leps to it. Part of this hardcover is over the lake. City coJp allows no hardcover or structures within 75' of the shoreline, except for one 4' wide stairw.<iy; 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%, consisting of: Accessory Building 22.rxl2.1' Concrete slab adjacent to building (Approx 12x18) Retaining Walls Stone walkway and landing Deck at shore incl steps (portion over land) Slone & wood borders 267 s.f 208 s.f 87 s.f 71 s.f 84 s.f 27 s.f 749 s.f 74580=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 appiications 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, Ught and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, nnJ the effect on values ofproperty Ut the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recomm ’.nding approved for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated that suck actions witt be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code.