Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2010 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#10-3445 CLIFFORD AND BARBARA SWENSON,2956 CASCO POINT ROAD, <br /> CONTINUED) _ <br /> If the Planning Commission determines that a landing is necessary, Staff recommends approval of a <br /> landing four feet wide maximum, centered on the stair in order to offer a greater setback from each side <br /> lot line. <br /> Feuss asked if any of the adjacent neighbors have similar decks. <br /> Curtis stated the adjacent neighbors,based on the aerial photograph,do seem to have some significant <br /> structural features down by the lake,with the one neighbor having a boat structure. <br /> Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,noted the applicant resides in Florida during the winter and was unable to <br /> make tonight's meeting. The deck in its original condition had existed for a number of years but was <br /> deteriorated, so his son constructed a new deck but made it bigger than what it originally was. The <br /> neighbor to the north is fine with the deck. The applicant is fine with centering the deck on the stairway. <br /> Gronberg noted the stairway is approximately four feet wide and having a deck that is four feet wide <br /> would serve no purpose. Both of the neighbors have bigger decks than this one and the applicant would <br /> like to replace what he had. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether the deck has footings. <br /> Gronberg indicated he is not sure how the deck is constructed. <br /> Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. <br /> Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Staff and that there are a number of residents in Orono who would <br /> love to have a deck of this size but are not able to. Rahn stated in his view approving this deck would be <br /> precedent setting. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether the deck was grandfathered in. <br /> Curtis stated the original deck was considered an illegal nonconfornung structure since no permit was <br /> ever issued for the deck. <br /> Feuss indicated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendations. <br /> Leslcinen asked what the size of the proposed deck is. <br /> Crronberg indicated it was approximately 9' x 14' and that the original deck was in existence for <br /> approximately 30 years. <br /> Rahn stated the problem is that it is illegally nonconforming, and that the issue is whether the applicant <br /> should be allowed to construct a new deck after-the-fact. Rahn noted the zero setbacks are also an'issue. <br /> Page <br /> 10 <br />