My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-19-2019 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2019
>
08-19-2019 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2019 9:42:09 AM
Creation date
8/20/2019 9:33:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FILE#LA19-000053 <br /> August 19,2019 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The <br /> average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward <br /> protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. <br /> a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or <br /> right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of <br /> the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately <br /> adjacent improved lakeshore lot. <br /> b. For lots with lakeshore on two opposing sides, the average lakeshore shall only <br /> apply to the side opposite the street. <br /> c. Exception. In situations where any part of the principal structure on the <br /> adjacent lots is lakeward of the ALS as described above, a second line shall be <br /> drawn connecting the most adjacent lake side corners of the principal structures <br /> on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. <br /> All three options include language related to lots with two opposing lakeshores, defining the <br /> 'protected'shore. <br /> Public Comments <br /> To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel the proposed agree with the goals? <br /> Planning Staff Recommendation <br /> The options represent differing direction. <br /> Option 2 is a true averaged setback,and is easy to define for end users,though it may not protect <br /> views to the level expected. <br /> Option 3 is our current process, with the added exception, which adds the corner to corner line <br /> described in Option 1. Staff does not support this option because it adds confusion, and is likely <br /> to be misinterpreted(as the current rule was mis-interpreted by a surveyor that has done lakeside <br /> projects in Orono for decades. <br /> Planning Staff recommends Option 1. Option 1 is a corner to corner line, eliminating the <br /> possibility of the line bisecting adjacent properties, is easy to understand and communicate while <br /> protecting views. <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> Exhibit A. Pence Lane example <br /> Exhibit B. Lot samples <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.