Laserfiche WebLink
� ��' CITY of ORONO <br /> O_.:� O <br /> � �;�T� ,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ,`'��, i��.�;�� � N0. � � - <br /> � ti <br /> t��9x og�G <br /> Es8 <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18, 1993, <br /> and recommended approval of the after-the-fact variances subject to specific <br /> hardcover removal requirements, based upon the following findings: <br /> A. The applicants' statement of hardship and unusual property conditions <br /> indicate that the angle of the house in relation to the lot lines creates poor <br /> accessibility to the rear of the lot, necessitating the deck. <br /> B. The deck as it exists today has been in place for eight years. - <br /> C. Hardcover prior to the deck installation was approximately 32%, now is <br /> approximately 35%, all in the 250-500' zone. There is an area of the <br /> driveway backup apron which can be removed to reduce hardcover on the <br /> property by approximately 2%. <br /> D. Applicants' fence encroachment 2' over the rear lot line should be <br /> elitninated, and the storage shed located in the front yard where no stora�e <br /> . shed would normally be allowed, should be removed. <br /> E. Applicants apparently conversed �with the Building Inspector at the time <br /> of the eonstruction, and for unknown reasons no permit or variance <br /> applications were made at that time. <br /> 4. The deck is an encroachment on the side setback requirement because its railing <br /> extends aiiove the ground floor level of the residence. Portions of the deck are <br /> at an elevation that requires a railing per the building code. If the deck was <br /> lowered and the railing removed, there would be no need for a variance. <br /> However, age of the deck and its railing height no higher than the height that a . <br /> fence could be in the side yard, suggests that the encroachment has a mini.mal <br /> impact on the neighboring properties, especially since that deck is near the rear <br /> comers of the two nearest neighboring properties. <br /> 5. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and <br /> recommendadons of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br /> welfare of the community. , <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> ►..���. <br />