My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-09-2005 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
05-09-2005 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 3:50:25 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:52:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 9, 2005 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />i <br />( #05 -3091 Catherine Sallas, Continued) <br />Gaffron stated a rooftop deck is a building issue and is not really a zoning issue except for that portion of <br />the deck that encroaches within the side yard setback.. <br />Sallas stated to her knowledge this house has existedin pretty much its present condition for the past 70 <br />years. Sallas commented if the City were to examine every piece of property within the City, they would <br />likely find numerous situations where structural coverage or hardcover has been added without the City's <br />knowledge. <br />Murphy stated by definition this is a rooftop deck and that the City has nothing in their regulations that <br />prohibits a rooftop deck. I <br />Gaffron stated the code addresses setbacks and heights and that a second story could potentially be <br />approved on this residence. <br />Murphy inquired what would need to be done structurally to the house if the deck were removed. <br />Kellogg indicated he has not reviewed the deck personally and is unsure what work would be required to <br />the residence. <br />Gaffron stated in his opinion the roof was treated in some way to be made impervious and that he is <br />unsure what needs to be done in order to remove theI,deck. Gaffron stated the building inspector would <br />need to inspect the roof to determine exactly what needs to be done. <br />Murphy reiterated there is a droop in the roofline onithe south side of the deck that should be examined. <br />White stated he does not see a legal reason to not allow the deck. White noted fencing is not allowed <br />within 75 feet of the lakeshore, and suggested a portion of the fencing be removed. <br />White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve an after - the -fact variance for the property located at <br />3635 North Shore Drive, subject to the removal of all fencing located within the 0 -75' zone and <br />further subject to the removal of 140 feet of hardcover from the existing grade -level deck that <br />extends lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. <br />Sallas stated she is not agreeable to removing all th i fencing. Sallas stated that is a considerable amount <br />of hardcover. Sallas stated at some point in the future this residence probably would be torn down but <br />that she would like to keep what was on the property at the time she purchased it. Sallas stated in her <br />opinion,she is being asked to remove an unreasonable amount of hardcover. <br />Sansevere stated the amount of hardcover the Council is asking be removed is really not a negotiation. <br />• McMillan noted the deck does encroach on the side9yard setback and that that encroachment should be <br />compensated in some way. McMillan inquired whether there is fencing on both sides of the house. <br />PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.