Laserfiche WebLink
� o� <br /> 0 0 <br /> �b-.� CITY of ORONO <br /> a � <br /> �� G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> l" �i `� '� `� o � <br /> 9kESH�4 NO. <br /> A. Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his <br /> residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The ��ording of the variance <br /> resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application can <br /> be interpreted that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and <br /> approved at that time. <br /> B. Applicant obtained a building permit (#1140) for construction of proposed <br /> screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant then constructed a <br /> screen porch, added railings to the pre-existing deck, and a stairway at <br /> the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The <br /> work covered under permit #1140 was subject to a final' inspection on <br /> June 26, 1989 after which time permit #1140 was considered as no <br /> longer valid for further work. <br /> C. In 1994 the applicant replaced major portions of the deck, which work <br /> required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because <br /> it constituted a replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the <br /> property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. <br /> D. In-kind replacement of the deck as proposed and as completed has not <br /> increased hardcover on the property above that which pre-existed. <br /> Further, although hardcover based on applicants' 1996 survey appears to <br /> be 384 s.f. in excess of the hardcover amount approved in 1987, it <br /> appears that the hardcover excesses are due partly to survey discrepancies <br /> and partly to interpretation of square footage of hardcover associated with <br /> rock walls and walkways on the property. <br /> E. The pre-existing deck was in a state of disrepair and was unsafe. Upon <br /> application for a building permit, the applicant was advised of the need <br /> for a variance. Applicant chose to replace the deck without ���aitin� for <br /> variance approval. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safet�� a�-�d <br /> welfare of the community. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />