Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Deck Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves replacement and 16x16 addition to nonconforming deck at 121 Northeast Williams Avenue
Summary
At its Jan. 8 meeting the Depoe Bay Planning Commission approved an application by property owner Alan Fleming to replace an existing nonconforming deck in its current footprint and add a 16‑by‑16 deck expansion that meets current setbacks.
The Depoe Bay Planning Commission on Jan. 8 approved an application by property owner Alan Fleming to replace an existing nonconforming deck at 121 Northeast Williams Avenue and add a 16‑by‑16 deck section that conforms to current setback rules.
City Planner Zach presented the staff report and described the request as two parts: replacement of the existing deck within its current footprint and a 16‑by‑16 addition that the planner said is “wholly within the required setbacks.” Zach told the commission the application had been revised since the Dec. 10 continuation and that those revisions addressed a previous public concern about an extension that encroached into the setback. “Based on the applicable criteria, staff recommends that the planning commission approve the applicant’s request,” Zach said.
The parcel is in Depoe Bay’s R‑4 zoning district. Planner Zach cited Depoe Bay Zoning Ordinance sections 152.028 and 152.153–152.156 as the code sections relevant to deck setbacks and maintenance of nonconforming structures. Under the city code, decks may encroach into the required setback by one‑third of the total setback distance; staff and the applicant’s revised plan place the new addition entirely inside the required setback line while the replacement work remains inside the existing footprint.
A neighboring property owner had submitted written testimony about a separate comment from the Dec. 10 hearing concerning the neighbor’s shed; Zach said those comments were not germane to the decision before the commission. Commissioner Ruth posed a question about whether wholesale replacement of a nonconforming structure qualifies as “maintenance” or a “renovation.” Zach said the code does not define “renovation” precisely and that staff’s reading is that replacement within the existing footprint can qualify as maintenance under the nonconforming‑structure provisions.
Commissioners discussed the statutory ambiguity and compared the situation to a long‑running “one board at a time” replacement question; the panel concluded the replacement within the same footprint is a maintenance activity that the commission may authorize. After deliberation a motion to approve the application as presented, subject to the staff report conditions, was made and seconded. In a roll call vote Commissioner Cliff Meyer, Commissioner Moreland and Commissioner Sherman voted yes; the motion passed.
The commission closed the public hearing after hearing no additional oral testimony and moved on to other agenda items. No permit variance application was before the commission for this item; the action approved reconstruction within the existing nonconforming footprint plus the revised 16‑by‑16 addition that complies with the setback standard.
Votes at a glance - Application of Alan Fleming, Case file 1‑NCU‑PC‑24 — Approved; motion to approve application as presented and with staff conditions; roll call: Meyer Aye, Moreland Aye, Sherman Aye.
