Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 6. #05-3091 CATHERINE SALLAS,3635 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT <br /> VARIANCE,6:29 P.M.—6:59 P.M. <br /> Catherine Sallas,Applicant, was present. <br /> Curtis stated the applicant is requesting after-the-fact hardcover,lake and side setback variances to allow <br /> an existing rooftop deck to remain 50 feet from the lake and nine feet from the southwest lot line on the <br /> roof of the existing home. In April of 1998,the previous property owner was notified that a deck <br /> constructed on the roof of the home required permits and a variance. The same property owner repaired <br /> the deck after a storm without obtaining the appropriate building permits. In October of 2004,the current <br /> property owner was notified that this rooftop deck did not have proper City approval. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact variances for the rooftop deck subject to a building <br /> permit being obtained for the deck. <br /> Sallas stated she does not have anything to add to Staff's Report <br /> Rahn opened the public hearing. <br /> Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive,noted he did submit some photographs to Staff and that he is <br /> opposed to the after-the-fact variance for a deck since it would set a bad example. Welch stated the deck <br /> also is not very pleasing to the eye and imposes on his privacy. Welch questioned whether it meets City <br /> codes. <br /> Brad Olson, 3645 North Shore Drive, stated he would concur with Welch's comments and that in his <br /> opinion approval of the after-the-fact variance would set a bad example. Olson commented he also has <br /> concerns regarding his privacy,noting that the property is currently for rent and that he has concerns <br /> about the future occupants of this residence. Olson questioned whether this property is in compliance <br /> with the hardcover regulations. <br /> Sallas pointed out that both of the adjoining property owners purchased their properties with the deck <br /> already existing and that they were well aware of the deck at the time of purchase. Sallas noted this <br /> residence is one story and the adjoining residences are a story and a half. Sallas commented in her view <br /> this is more of a personal vendetta and that she has put a substantial amount of money into the property to <br /> improve the overall appearance of the lot. Sallas stated she is happy to obtain a building permit. <br /> Rahn stated the Planning Commission typically looks at after-the-fact variances as if the deck or other <br /> structure is not there and whether it would have been allowed in the first place. <br /> Donna Olson indicated they did purchase the property knowing that the deck was there but that they did <br /> question how often the deck was used at the time of purchase and was told that it was rarely used. <br /> Brad Olson stated he did have an issue with the deck from the beginning and thought the deck would be <br /> dealt with at the time the property was sold since the City was aware of it. Olson indicated the City's <br /> building inspector informed him that the new owner would remove the deck. <br /> Sallas stated to her knowledge the previous owner had no conversation regarding removal of the deck. <br /> PAGE 7 <br />