Laserfiche WebLink
^ ; <br />I i-' <br />P: <br />kir <br />I <br />Application Date: <br />Deadline: <br />8/21/00 <br />12/19/00 <br />COllNir.ii <br />OCT 0 9 2000 <br />C\7Y ur unv^iYU <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: October 4,2000 <br />ITEM NO.: ^ <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Paul Weinberger <br />Title Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />Lbt of Exhibits: <br />#2610 Jerome J. Hall <br />80 Leaf Street <br />After-the-Fact Variances <br />RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) <br />36,625 s.f. (0.84 acre) <br />A <br />B <br />C <br />D <br />Site Plan <br />Revised Plan <br />Planning Commicsion Minutes (September 18, 2000) <br />Planning Report (September 13,2000) <br />Application Review: <br />Applicant requests approval of an after-the-fact variance to permit replacement of a deck within the 75' <br />setback to a protected tributary. The applicant has stated the preexisting deck was not safe and needed <br />replacement. In July, 2000 it was observed the deck was being replaced without a permit. The deck has been <br />at^ut 50% completed and is constructed larger than the deck that was removed. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation: <br />The Planning Commission Recommended 7 to 0 to deny the application because the amount of hardcover <br />within the 75' setback would be increased. The Planning Commission also reviewed the application and <br />determined they would have not recommended increasing the size of the deck had the application been <br />reviewed prior to any work being completed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission they would <br />support replacement of a deck without increasing the hardcover within the 75' setback. <br />Revised Plan: <br />Based on the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, the applicant has proposed a revision to <br />the plan that would remove some of the deck located within the 75' setback and extend to the deck to the <br />south an additional 2' (most of which would be outside of the 75' setback to th<» creek). Please refer to <br />Exhibits A and B showing the survey and proposed plans. The applicant has stated the deck extension to the <br />south rr ay be better because it would require fewer steps up to the deck platform. Some of the deck would