Laserfiche WebLink
survey spikes are placed in the center of these timbers. T s, the wood border is only half on the ill <br /> 2815 property, so there would only be a minimal hardcov reduction if these timbers were <br /> removed. Moreover,the wood border retains the river roc , dirt and garden plantings to the west <br /> of the property. This wooden border straddling the prope y line is needed as the slope of the <br /> adjacent yards falls by approximately 6 inches to 2 feet along the border. Thus, removing these <br /> timber retaining walls would adversely affect the existing landscaping as nothing would prevent <br /> the landscaping and existing garden plantings from falling and eroding towards the subject <br /> property. We would find it acceptable for the subject pro rty owners to replace the wood <br /> landscape border with something more aesthetically pleasi g to them, so long as it continues to <br /> perform the needed retaining wall function and we approv the plan in writing before work on <br /> this border starts. <br /> The proposed new 3-car garage lists the dimensions as 22'' 30' on the survey, and then <br /> "expanded from survey" to be 32' x 24'. We have found other discrepancies between the survey <br /> and the hardcover calculations. Our calculation of the existing concrete driveway is 186 sq. ft <br /> less than the 1,038 sq. ft listed in the hardcover spreadshei. For this reason, it is difficult to <br /> assess the hardcover data when the widths and lengths of i ch calculation are not provided. We <br /> would appreciate more detailed drawings of the proposed Mans so that we can better assess the <br /> changes. <br /> Construction Concerns <br /> The survey shows a 2' gap between the driveway and the lit to the west. What will be in this 2' <br /> gap? How will the construction crews protect adjacent pr.ys erty features? We are concerned that <br /> • <br /> work trucks will cut across our brick pavers and damage o driveway. A suggested option <br /> would be to put something immovable on the pavers to pr.:, ent damage, or go ahead and cut <br /> across the pavers and repair any damage done after const ction is complete. We are also <br /> concerned that the existing solid block retaining wall at th driveway could be damaged by <br /> driveway removal and replacement. We would like to see *tten plans on how these <br /> constructions concerns. as well as noise, and construction •arking will be addressed. <br /> Summary <br /> We are opposed to any variance being approved related to the subject property for the reasons <br /> stated herein. We believe that proposed house and garage odifications are not in keeping with <br /> the character and harmony other Casco Point homes. Theproposed street view of the house is <br /> consumed by the front facing 3-car garage with a hidden nt entry way that is not appealing <br /> from the street, or for the neighbor's view. The overall proposed house plans and deck are not in <br /> balance with the neighborhood, nor in balance and charactr of the lot size. Having such a <br /> massive structure so close to our home in violation of the s de setback of 7.5 feet would <br /> adversely affect our safety and enjoyment of our property. While we welcome improvements to <br /> the existing 2815 home, we believe all of these additions . d modifications can be accomplished <br /> within the Orono building codes. The oversized reach of t ese plans violates the city building <br /> codes and there is no demonstrable need to build such al. te imposing structure on a small <br /> narrow lot. The garage increases from a 2-car detached to ; 3-car attached garage, and the <br /> proposed deck is almost the entire width of the house. All .f these variance requests to <br /> accommodate these changes are not demonstrably necess. i to live and enjoy the property as the <br /> fact remains that the previous homeowners raised 4 active d engaging children in the home as <br /> it stands now! 1111 <br />