Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> SEPTEMBER 18,2000 <br /> • (#2610 Jerome Hall, Continued) <br /> 2. The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. <br /> 3. The deck would not encroach closer to the creek than the pre-existing deck. <br /> 4. The deck is located on an area of the property that is generally flat and does not slope <br /> directly to the creek. This condition allows for surface water to infiltrate into the ground <br /> better than property with varying topography. <br /> Gronberg indicated the creek is not pristine pond but rather acts as a holding pond prior to <br /> reaching the dam. Gronberg stated the creek does meander from time to time and it is difficult <br /> to determine the exact pathway of the creek. <br /> Hall indicated he was not at home at the time the deck was removed and replaced. Hall stated <br /> his builder apparently applied for the building permit afterwards. <br /> Smith inquired whether the homeowner expected the contractor to follow the proper procedures <br /> for construction of the deck. <br /> Hall stated he did. <br /> Smith inquired whether an after-the-fact fee would apply in this case. <br /> • Weinberger stated an after-the-fact fee to his knowledge has not been applied to this application. <br /> Weinberger stated he was not aware this was an after-the-fact permit until after he had viewed <br /> the site. <br /> Hawn stated had the Applicant come in prior to construction,he would have been told that he <br /> could replace the existing deck but could not add any additional feet within the 75 foot setback. <br /> Hawn stated if the additional deck is allowed, it could set a precedent. <br /> Smith stated she would like to see an after-the-fact fee applied in this case. <br /> Lindquist commented there is no hardship in this case to allow the additional six feet. <br /> Smith stated in other similar situations the Applicants have been requested to reduce the size of <br /> the deck. <br /> Hawn inquired why the Applicant expanded the deck. <br /> Hall stated he expanded the deck to make it nicer. <br /> Smith inquired whether some other hardcover could be removed elsewhere in this area. <br /> Hall stated there is not. <br /> Hawn reiterated that the Planning Commission would not have allowed the additional six feet <br /> • <br /> PAGE 23 <br />