04-10-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 10, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. APPEAL, MICHAEL EBERTZ, 1220 TONKA WA —DECK REPLACEMENT, Continued) • retaining wall work in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations and in conjunction with 800 square feet of hardcover removals within the 0 -75' zone. Staff finds it surprising that the Ebertzs claim to - ,. -be: unaware -of the need -for permits. Mr. Ebertz stated the process that they followed was not to break any laws of the city. Ebertz acknowledged that they did appear before the Council previously concerning a retaining wall. Ebertz stated at that time he mentioned that he was going to be restaining the deck and that during the summer a windstorm knocked down a branch that damaged their deck. Ebertz stated they proceeded to repair the deck and that they found that the damage was more extensive as they proceeded forward. Ebertz stated they ended up primarily replacing board for board the previous deck and elected to reduce the deck by 32 square feet. Ebertz indicated they also relocated the deck one foot further away from the lake than it was previously to lessen its visibility. Mrs. Ebertz stated they were aware of the hardcover requirements, which was the reason why the deck was reduced, but that they were not aware that they needed to obtain approval from the City to repair it. McMillan stated in her view the applicants should have been aware of the need to comeback to the city for approval based on their previous application. Ebertz stated their original intent was to just restain the deck and. that following the storm they went ahead and repaired it on a- Saturday without thinking about the need to obtain a permit. White inquired if the property owners replaced it board for board, whether they would be allowed to do that. Gaffron stated the property,owners are allowed to replace something in kind but noted that this is not exactly what previously existed. Gaffron stated they would still be required to obtain a permit. Brokl stated the permit would have to be applied within 180 days of the damage being incurred. Gaffron stated if a plan had been submitted, they would have been advised that they needed a variance. Murphy inquired why it would require a variance. Gaffron stated the new location and new construction within the 0 -75' setback would require a variance. Gaffron stated state statute does allow property owners to replace something in kind but that this was not an in kind replacement. Murphy stated based on the pictures submitted by the property owners, the new deck is visually more appealing than the original deck and less obtrusive. Murphy stated if the property owners were forced to tear out the deck, the Council would be making a statement to the residents that they are required to obtain the proper permits before commencing any work on their property. Ebertz stated they did not intentionally try to do anything illegal. Murphy inquired why the property owners did not check with the city prior to commencing any work. 0 PAGE 10 of 15