Laserfiche WebLink
, . <br /> , R . } <br /> � <br /> ,. o ' <br /> Clt� o� ORONO . �� <br /> • (�`jj RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2704 <br /> • � • • <br /> A) The Planning Commission recommended denial of the <br /> after-the-fact variance for the deck construction, <br /> finding no hardship clemonstrated to justify granting of <br /> the necessary hardcover and setback variances. <br /> B) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br /> existing and proposed retaining wall construction, <br /> finding that the proposed walls are necessary for <br /> protection of the stability of the lakeshore bank while <br /> being minor in scope so• as to have an insignificant <br /> impact as viewed from the lake. In conjunction with <br /> the retaining walls, Planning Commission recommends <br /> approval of leaving the pre-existing concrete <br /> ' foundation walls in place but that the wall be capped <br /> with a fence or suitable safety barrier. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that after-the-fact approval of <br /> the proposed deck is justified on the basis that this is a <br /> decrease in the intensity of the use as compared to the <br /> previously existing boat house structure. This decrease in <br /> • intensity of use would be generally consistent with policies <br /> stated in the City of Orono Comprehensive Management Plan. <br /> 5. The special conditions applying to this structure are <br /> unique to this property, in that the remaining boat house <br /> foundation wall provides a � measure of stability to the <br /> lakeshore bank. At the same time, that foundation wall is <br /> adjacent to the lakeshore and the adjacent steep topography <br /> makes it impossible to adequately place fill against the <br /> wall to provide for a more suitable blending of contours. <br /> 6. The remaining foundation wall creates a steep drop of <br /> approximately 10` which would require a railing if the deck <br /> was not in place. The deck provides such a railing for <br /> saf ety purposes. <br /> 7. The applicant claims he was unaware of the need for <br /> permits to remove the pre-existing boat house that was <br /> damaged in the 1987 "Super Storm". Applicant also claims <br /> that he did not know that repairing retaining walls or <br /> construction of a deck above the remaining boat house <br /> foundation required City approval. <br /> 8. The City Council finds that removal of the pre-existing <br /> boat house and replacement with a deck of identical <br /> • footprint is justified by the decrease in visual impact from <br /> the lake, and further finds that there is no increase in <br /> hardcover in the 0-75' zone over what was previously <br /> existing. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />