07-18-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 4 i' n .11 to*Planning Coealsalon Chairafen iCallay Orono Planning Coaaiissloci Hanbara City Adaiinlatrator BernhardaonFrasData:Michael P, Caffron# IMiat Planning i S<ming Jk^aiaiatrator July 13, 19SaSubject: 11307 Diana and Oouglaa Public Bearing Men 31f5 Ihitartcnra load Variance ~ Conatroct a deck within raguirad atraat yard aetJback Boning Diatrict - Rl-IB, 2 acre rural raaidantial Liat of Bzhibita Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P A(;plication Plat Map Property Owners Liat Survey Propoaed Deck Plana Staff Sketch of Deck Propoaal iShoving Relationahic to loads Partl]i«it Pacts 1. This is a corner lot and has frontage on both Matertown Road and Leaf Street. The RR-IB tone requires a 50* structural aatback fron a aide •treet. The existing house# which has been there for nany years# is located approximately 1* fron the %rest property line# and the propoaed deck stpcture will be approximately 11* from that lot line at the closest point. 2. Because the deck structure requires a railing# the deck does not meet the intent of the non-encroachment section# and must meet the required setback. 3. The applicant notes that this deck replaces an existing deck which they have recently removed due to its poor condition. There is very little evidence to suggest the size of the pre-existing deck# however# there are no nail holes or evidence that the deck ever was wrapped around the house to the north side. Perhaps the applicant can provide pictures to show what that existing deck looked like. 4. The proposed deck is laid out to keep only a 1* setback from the well* where a 3* wel 1-to-structure setback is required. If this deck in approved# it must be redesigned to meet that 3* setback requirement. 5. Construction on this deck was coismer.ced without a permit# and was rod- tagged by the building inspector. According to the Inspector# the applicants stated they didn't realiso a permit was required to replace an existing deck. j staffs opinion that this deck will have absolutely no effect cn neighboring properties# and will have no negative effects on the w •m tmm J 5 !k;#‘ 4 - m ri ir.' .'r ^ t > i I 9 / I a1 1 j