Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />The Orono Planning Commission rcv.^rwed this application on October 18, 1993, <br />and recommended approval of the C'.er-the-fact variances subject to specific <br />hardcover removal requirements, based upon the following findings: <br />A.The applicants* statement of hardship and unusual property conditions <br />indicate that the angle of the house in relation to the lot lines creates poor <br />accessibilitv to the rear of the lot, necessitatins the deck. <br />B. The deck as it exists today has been in place for eight years. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />Hardcover prior to the deck installation was approximately 32%, now is <br />approximately 359^, all in the 250-500 ’ zone. There is an area of the <br />driveway backup apron which can be removed to reduce hardcover on the <br />property by approximately 2%. <br />Applicants’ fence encroachment 2 ’ over the rear lot line should be <br />eliminated, and the storage shed ItKaied in the front yard where no storage <br />shed would normally be allowed, should be removed. <br />Applicants apparently conversed with the Building Inspector at the time <br />of the construction, and for unknown reasons no permit or variance <br />applications were made at that time. <br />The deck is an encniachment on the side setback requirement because its railing <br />extends above th; gK'und i1iH)r level of the residence. Portions of the deck are <br />at an elevation that requires a railing per the building code. If the deck was <br />lowered and the railing removed, there would be no need for a variance. <br />However, age of the deck and its railing height no higher than the height that a <br />fence could be in the side yard, suggests that the encroachment has a minimal <br />impact on the neighboring properties, especially since that deck is near the rear <br />comers of the two nearest neighboring properties. <br />The City Council has considered this application including th<^ findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reptirts by City staff, comments <br />by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the comrnunitv. <br />Page 2 of 7