Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 ZONING ADl\'IINISTRA TOR'S REPORT (#3) #2112 RICHARD AND JANET PUTNAM, 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE-RESOLUTION #3730 Richard Putnam was present. Gaffron reported that the application was for an after-the-fact hardcover variance for the reconstruction of a lakeside deck located out of the 0-75' zone . Gaffron said the memo states the reasons why the applicant rebuilt the deck without obtaining a permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval, and the Staff concurs with that recommendation. Putnam said the City Staff received the necessary information to iss_ue a building pennit well before he began replacement of the joists and boards of the deck. When he stopped to pick up the building permit, Putnam said he found staff was unable to issue the permit. Putnam said the deck existed in 1989 when the replacement deck was approved with other remodeling . When it became of a deteriorating state, Putnam said he thought it was already approved . Because of an upcoming party, Putnam went ahead with the rebuilding , was then tagged, but finished the railing on the deck anyways . Putnam said he spoke with Staff and told them it did not make any sense that the deck was not to be rebuilt without obtaining a variance . He added that he did not have to go through this same process with his bedroom remodeling . Putnam said it has cost him $900 for the review on a $1500 deck project . Putnam said the inspector was helpful in the bedroom remodeling, which made him upset that he was unable to obtain the same assistance with the deck reconstruction . It is Putnam's opinion that the application process is a waste of time . He said many other people go ahead with projects without obtaining the required permits . He does not feel the people are being well served by the cumbersome process . Putnam feels the City would generate more revenue by eliminating the variance process and obtaining building permits only. He asks the Council to review the process as he did with the Planning Commission to make it easier for others in the future. Goetten responded to Putnam by informing him that she was involved in the 1988 review, noting it was a number of variances that were approved . Goetten reminded Putnam that there is a time limit to the variance approvals, and the costs generated by the deck reconstruction included costs which were brought on Putnam by rebuilding without the required pennits. She also noted that in reviewing the minutes from when he received variances in 1988, she saw no mention of the deck . Goetten commented that the Putnam property was substandard and overused in relation to its size which is a concern to the City . 2