Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, February 19, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) <br /> Chair Smith asked if the gravel parking space would be used for guests or for permanent <br /> storage of extra vehicles. <br /> Gaffron stated that, typically, there are not many extra cars parked in this area. <br /> Manley stated that he normally parked his vehicles in his driveway and used his garage to <br /> store his collection of old cars. <br /> Rahn asked if the deck on the lakeside was included in the structural coverage calculations <br /> and what they were. <br /> Manley stated that they were not increasing the hardcover because the deck would be over <br /> existing hardcover already. <br /> Rahn asked if the structural coverage numbers were over the allowed maximum. <br /> Gaffron indicated that the applicant had been denied a variance for lot coverage for a deck <br /> on a previous application. The structural coverage was previously 17%, not a great deal <br /> over the allowed, but this was the figure prior to adding the lower portion to the mix, <br /> which would change the lot coverage equation. Gaffron believed the structural coverage to <br /> be at or near 15%taking into consideration both parcels. <br /> Manley pointed out that when he submitted his plans for the lower level, the deck on the <br /> backside of the house was included on the sketch. He passed around the blueprints with <br /> the approval stamped on them, maintaining that he had been under the impression this deck <br /> was allowed at the time these plans were approved. Manley stated that he had not intended <br /> to blatantly build a deck without permission. <br /> Although familiar with the drawings, Gaffron argued that, at the time of submission, the <br /> applicant had said nothing about a deck and the building inspector did not believe the plan <br /> had ever addressed a deck. <br /> Rahn stated that an old picture of the original home showed that an old deteriorated deck <br /> did exist. <br /> Manley stated that he believed there had been a misunderstanding between he and the City <br /> and now that he has built the deck, he was hesitant to tear it off leaving the doors exposed. <br /> Chair Smith agreed there was little hardship to support its existence. <br /> With regard to the east side deck, Mabusth questioned the need for this additional deck <br /> when the applicant had a beautiful deck over the garage. <br /> PAGE 11 of 26 <br />