Laserfiche WebLink
A) The Planning Commission recommended denial of the <br />after -the -fact variance for the deck construction, <br />finding no hardship demonstrated to justify granting of <br />the necessary hardcover and setback variances. <br />B) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br />existing and proposed retaining wall construction, <br />finding that the proposed walls are necessary for <br />,cotection of the stability of the lakeshore bank while <br />being minor in scope so. as to have an insignificant <br />impact as viewed from the lake. In conjunction with <br />the retaining walls, Planning Commission recommends <br />approval of leaving the pre-existing concrete <br />foundation walls in place but that the wall be capped <br />with a fence or suitable safety barrier. <br />4. The City Council finds that after -the -fact approval of <br />the proposed deck is justified on the basis that this is a <br />decrease in the intensity of the use as compared to the <br />previously existing boat house structure. This decrease in <br />intensity of use would he generally consistent with policies <br />stated in the City of Orono Comprehensive Management Plan. <br />5. The special conditions applying to this structure are <br />unique to this property, in that the remaining boat house <br />foundation wall provides a measure of stability to the <br />lakeshore bank. At the same time, that foundation wall is <br />adjacent to the lakeshore and the adjacent steep topography <br />makes it impossible to adequately place fill against the <br />wall to provide for a more suitable blending of contours. <br />6. The remaining foundation wall creates a steep drop of <br />approximately 10' which would require a railing if the deck <br />was not in place. The deck provides such a railing for <br />safety purposes. <br />7. The applicant claims he was unaware of the need for <br />permits to remove the pre-existing boat house that was <br />damaged in the 1987 "Super Storm". Applicant also claims <br />that he did not know that repairing retaining walls cr <br />construction of a deck above the remaining boat house <br />foundation required City approval. <br />8. The City Council finds that removal of the pre-existing <br />boat house and replacement with a deck of identical <br />footprint is justified by the decrease in visual impact from <br />tht- lake, and further finds that there is no increase in <br />hardcover in the 0-75' zone over what was previously <br />existing. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />