Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />. -• • <br />mm 4 1 <br />•// <br />^ <br />G <br />r. <br />••-. .4^# <br />;*i -j'-t»v <br />DESCRIPTION OP HARDSHIP AKD DESCRIPTION <br />OP OTTOSnAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS <br />In August 1989, the applicant, Jacquelynn Kelly, purchased the <br />property which is the subject of this Variance Application. At the <br />time ot the purchase, there was a rectangular-shaped deck attached <br />to the back of the home, between the home and the lakeshore. The <br />deck was in disrepair and in a dangerous condition, as the deck <br />floor was rotting and the supporting posts for the deck were not <br />secured in the ground. Ms. Kelly specifically bought the home <br />because she liked the deck area which overlooked the lake. <br />After moving on to the property, Ms. Kelly retained an <br />architect to assist her in repairing the deck. The architect <br />suggested to modify the design of the deck somewhat and to repair <br />and replace the underlying post so that the deck would be strong <br />and secure. Ms. Kelly arranged for these repairs. After repairs <br />were underway, Ms. Kelly learned through her construction worker <br />and her architect that the new deck would be in violation of both <br />the Orono Hardcover Ordinance and the Orono Setback Requirement. <br />She also learned that the old deck was certainly in violation of <br />the Hardcover Ordinance and may quite possibly have been in <br />violation of the Setback Requirement. The new proposed deck <br />actually provides less Hardcover than the old deck. <br />Ms. Kelly is presented with a unic'ie situation. She purchased <br />this property because of the deck area which overlooks the lake. <br />She had no idea that she was violating any ordinances and really <br />had no warning that she was in violation because there seemed to <br />be no problem with the existing deck structure. <br />Ms. Kelly's new deck is substantially completed. She will be <br />faced with an undue hardship if she is forced to remove this deck <br />because she has spent her funds to hire an architect and construct <br />the deck. Further, if she is forced to remove the deck, she will <br />not be able to use her property in the manner she intended to use <br />it when she purchased it a few months ago. Allowing the new deck <br />to remain will be within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in <br />that the existing use of the land for a deck area would be <br />retained, while the new deck provides a stronger and more secure <br />structure. <br />I