Laserfiche WebLink
June 16, 1993 <br /> Page 3 <br /> is only a small elevation change, that a sidewalk curving in the <br /> fashion indicated on the site plan attached be a permitted <br /> improvement within the 50-foot zone. The sidewalk will be low- <br /> key, nicely landscaped and will be a positive addition to both <br /> the Figge residence and to Sugarwoods. <br /> Drainage Issue Immediately north of the patio, at the rear <br /> of the house there is an area approximately 35 ' x 25 ' , triangular <br /> in shape, under water with about 10" of water at the deepest <br /> goint which water has already killed some mature trees. The <br /> Figge' s wish to fill this area so that the area will positively <br /> drain to the north of the lot where the drainage and utility <br /> easement lies and where the balance of the drainage on the lot <br /> now flows. This small, low spot was caused by "volunteer" <br /> (suckering) ash trees which grew up along fence line. The trees <br /> should have been trimmed to prevent water blockage, but they were <br /> not. Over time, as the ash grew in profundity they stopped the <br /> water flow out of the area, caused the water build-up and killed <br /> trees in the area. Even though this fill will be within the 50- <br /> foot setback zone, it is beneficial to the Figge's property and <br /> Sugarwoods in general in that it will facilitate better drainage <br /> from the site, will prevent the killing of more and more trees <br /> and will restore the area to its preexisting natural condition. <br /> Procedure. The Figge's would like permission to make the <br /> three changes described above. The methodology of making the <br /> changes may either be by interpretation of the existing <br /> declaration and Orono Resolution No. 2652 , or by variance from <br /> Orono Resolution No. 2652 and other governing rules and <br /> regulations because of hardship to the applicant. <br /> With regard to the sidewalk, the hardship to the applicant <br /> is caused by the unique shape and topography of the Figge lot in <br /> that it drops away steeply to the rear limiting the usable area <br /> outside the 50-foot setback zone on the street side of the <br /> property; the problem is a naturally created one not created by <br /> the Figge's; for a substantial and lovely new house it is a <br /> hardship that there be no adequate means of pedestrian access to <br /> it. The lack thereof would set their property apart from other <br /> lots in Sugarwoods which have a more amenable usable building <br /> area on the street side for appropriate vehicular and pedestrian <br /> access. <br /> The reasons for the driveway interpretation or variance are <br /> similar, but are more related to, in essence, carrying out the <br /> intents and purposes of Orono Resolution No. 2652 in that a <br /> curving driveway, the Figge's submit, is more aesthetic, more <br /> natural, than a perfectly straight driveway and it is our view <br /> that "straight" refers to the permissible 20-foot width from the <br />