Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Paul Weinberger <br />City Council of Orono <br />This fall, of 2001. Charlie and I decided to have our existing decks, <br />which were approximately 17 years old, repaired because many <br />boards were rotting out. There were places where the boards had <br />rotted to the degree that there were large holes in some of the <br />decking boards. We were concerned that visitors to our home could <br />be hurt when walking over our deck areas that led to the lake. Since <br />we were replacing existing decking we did not believe that we needed <br />to apply for a variance. <br />We hired a contractor to repair and replace some of the boards. <br />When they began to make repairs they found more and more <br />damaged wood, as well as rotted railroad ties that had been used for <br />decking support. In some places, they found more than one level of <br />ties used for support. Their decision was to make some removal <br />changes, and we agreed . It was necessary to take out the old, rotted <br />railroad ties, which ended up to be a total of twenty. The contractor <br />informed us, that according to code, they could not replace similar <br />decking supports because the railroad supports had been set into the <br />ground, below grade level. We were also told, that according to <br />code, they would need to provide proper foundational support and <br />that code specified frost footings and posts. They would need to <br />raise the height of the existing deck sections so they would be above <br />grade level. Consequently, we would also need two more steps built <br />than we originally had to accommodate the raised sections. <br />We started out with a project that seemed simple to resolve, but <br />turned out to be far more complex and costly than anticipated. <br />Sincerely. <br />Charles and Shirley Pyle <br />r* n <br />—>*• <br />; 5