02/20/2007 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF TAE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION - Tuesday,February 20,2007 . 6:00 o'clock p.m. . Winer stated she voted in opposition of the motion because she does not have a problem with utilizing the existing foundation as long as a structural engineer verifies its condition. NEW BUSINESS 6. #07-3251 MANDEEP SODHI,4080 DAHL ROAD,VARIANCE,6:58—7:30 P.1VI. Mandeep and Leisa Sodhi,Applicants,were present. Turner stated the applicants are requesting after-the-fact setback variances to allow the existing deck to remain as constructed with a 0.7 foot setback from the side property line when a ten-foot setback is required,to allow the patio under the deck to remain as consixucted with a 1.7 foot setback from the . � side property line when a two-foot setback is required,and to have 27 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when the maximum is 25 percent. � In the suinmer of 2005,the applieants were found to have replaced their deck without a permit. Further investigation revealed the deck had been constructed 9.3 feet into the required 10-foot setback. The survey and hardcover calculations submitted with the variance application also show a grade-level patio 1.7 feet from the side property line when the required setback is two feet and hardcover.in the 75-250 foot zone in excess of 25 percent. It is unclear whether the amount of hardcover is less with the new deck and the applicants are attempting to work with the surveyor to see if they can provide a breakdown of the hardcover from 2001. The house was constructed in 1973 with a deck that extended about halfway across the back of the house. Because of a variation in the back wall of the house,that deck extended eight feet from the family room and nine feet from the dinette area. The deck conformed to the 10-foot setback requirement. At some point the portion of the deck off the family room was converted to a room. In 2001,the applicants received a conditional use permit for retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone. The survey submitted with that application showed an irregularly shaped deck that encroached into the ten-foot required setback. That deck appears to have been constructed without a permit by the former owner. The Building Official has determined that the building code would require a minimum of a three-foot setback from the property line for the deck. Walls within three feet of a property line must be constructed to achieve a fire rating that is impossible to achieve with a deck. Tumer noted a municipality cannot grant a variance to a building code requirement. Turner requested the Planning Commission consider the following issues: 1. Was the situation that necessitates the variance not created by the applicants? If the Planning � Commission can establish that the variance would have been granted if it had been requested before the deck was reconstructed,this requirement would be satisfied. 2. Will the deck alter the essential character of the locality? The deck is located about 100 feet from the adjacent house. There is a wooded area between the two homes. PAGE 10