Laserfiche WebLink
. � <br /> � MINUTES OF THE <br /> � ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3251 Mandeep Sodhi, Continued) • . <br /> 3. Without the variance is there reasonable use of the property? Exhibit 1 shows the size of a . <br /> � deck at this location without a variance and how a deck of equivalent size to the existing deck <br /> could be constructed elsewhere within the required setbacks. The applicants should be asked <br /> why the deck was constructed in its current location and configuration. <br /> Turner stated the hardcover on.the property includes extensive planting beds with weed control fabric <br /> and patio areas at the front and back entry. The surveyor did not include the areas with weed control <br /> fabric in the haxdcover calculations so the actual amount of hardcover is greater than 27 percent. The <br /> applicants have indicated these patios and fabric are necessary to keep water out of the basement. <br /> Staff recommends denial of all the variances based on there being a reasonable alternative to the � <br /> proposal and on the failure of the applicant to demonstrate a hardship would be created by not granting <br /> the variances. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the applicants constructed the deck. <br /> Mr. Sodhi"stated they did construct the deck. They were replacing the windows when a worker fell <br /> � through the old deck. A permit was obtained for the windows but not the deck because they needed to <br /> immediately replace the deck for a large party scheduled for the next day. Sodhi stated essentially <br /> they replaced the deck with a similar deck and that it is actually smaller in size than the�original deck. . <br /> Sodhi noted they do have surveys showing the old deck and the new deck and that they are willing to <br /> work with the City on modifying the deck if necessary to make it confornung. <br /> Turner noted Exhibit E is the 2001 survey and that Exhibit F is a site plan from a 1993 building . <br /> permit. The applicants purchased the property in 2000 and the old deck was in place at the time of <br /> purehase. - <br /> Sodhi stated the old deck was larger and also encroached into the side yard setback. <br /> Mrs. Sodhi stated the dirt under the old deck was also causing some drainage problems,which they <br /> corrected when they constructed the new deck. <br /> Sodhi stated there was no drain tile in the house when they purchased it and that they have been <br /> making improvements to the exterior and interior of the house since acquiring it. Sodhi sta.ted they <br /> have corrected the drainage and have also installed drain tile. Sodhi stated the original house was not <br /> constructed parallel to the property line so it makes it difficult to add on to it. <br /> Zullo sta.ted the concem is the portion of the deck that is against building code and that the � <br /> encroachment is not acceptable. � <br /> Sodhi pointed out a portion of the house was constructed within the 10-foot encroachment. � <br /> PAGE 11 <br />