Correspondence re 1987 variance approval

Home Browse Search

Dick Pu�tnam January 29, 1996 Page 2 - You apparently constructed the screen porch as well as a stairway at the south end of the pre-existing deck in 1988 or 1989, added new railings to the existing deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. - A final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was coinpleted on June 26, 1989,at which time permit#1140 would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found that you were in the process of replacing the portions of the pre-existing rectangular deck which had not been rebuilt in 1989. They consequently placed a Stop Work Order, and you proceeded to complete the replacement of that deck without the authority of a building permit. It is our recollection that you were advised by various members of the Zoning staff that a hardcover variance was required before we could issue a building permit, and you never proceeded to make such an application,hence a building permit has never been issued for this work. No City staff person ever authorized you to complete the work absent a building pei•mit, although I do recall your stating to me that at tlus sta�e it was imperative for you to complele the deck to make it safe. There are two specific issues involved which I hope to clarify for you: 1. Any work on the existing deck after permit #1140 was "finaled" in 1989, would require a new building permit. Once a project has been considered as final, any further work, whether five months or five years later,requires a new building pernlit. 2. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 4, makes it unlawful to "convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter". "I'he City has consistently interpreted this to mean that any building or portion of a building which is intended to be removed and replaced, is not permitted if the replacement construction is non-conforming. Replacement of your pre-existing deck is non- � conforming because it constitutes hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone. Note that since Dave Breitner built at 2755 next door, your deck conforms to tlie average setback. Further, tlie City has interpreted that whether a structure to be replaced eYists legally via a past variance approval or is "legal non-conforming" because it existed before the pertinent codes went into effect, replacement of the structure is subject to the current codes. Past variance approval does not grant a permanent right to later rebuild a non-confornling structure. And, because the existing deck presumably had to be substantially removed in order to construct the new one, for some period of time in 1994 the deck did not exist and therefore its replacement is considered as new construction.