03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, I . . � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION 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 eng-ineer verifies its condition. NEW BUSINESS � � 6. #07-3251 MANDEEP SODHI,4080 DAHL ROAD,VARIANCE,6:58—7:30 P.M. 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 constructed 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 summer of 2005,the applieants were found to have replaced their deck without a pemut. F'urther 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 arxd the applicants are attempting to work with the surveyor to see if they can provide a breakdown of the hardcover from 200L . 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 pernut for retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone. The - su�ey�submitted=�th_thatapplication_sho�e�d_an_ixtegularly shap�d decJ�tJza��c�2acl�ed=into_the ten-foot required setback. That deck appears to have been constructed without a pernut 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. Turner 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 ,