My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1991 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1991
>
04-15-1991 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 12:22:42 PM
Creation date
12/14/2022 12:05:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
197
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
VARIANCES REQUIRED ,1 <br />rf <br />Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover <br />Setback Variances (Front Side X Rear) <br />Other <br />11 <br />HARDSHIP <br />Due to the unusual shape of the property, the current floor plan of <br />the residence and its existing location on the lot, this is the only feasible <br />way an addition can be constructed. <br />DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS <br />The existing 12' X 12'-6" long deck which has been their since 1984, <br />is 8 feet from the property line. This deck replaced a considerably larger deck <br />which ran along the entire length of the residence approximately 13 feet wide <br />by 45 feet long. The building foundation, built approximately 1968 at its <br />closest point is 11 feet from the property line. At no point will the three <br />season porch be any closer to the property line then the existing deck is. The <br />bathroom addition will be further away from the property line than the existing <br />deck is at its closest point. <br />The existing property between my east property line and Pence Lane <br />(driveway) was determined unbuildable by the planning commission in the early <br />eighties. The only buildable lot, for a family member only, is to the east of <br />PENCE Lane, because of this decision there will always be a large buffer of <br />greenspace between my residence and any future construction. I am also under the <br />impression that another part of the agreement between the city and the former <br />property owner was that when he was allowed to remodel 2702 Walters Port, he was <br />to deed a portion of this green space, which he also owned at chat time to this <br />lot. This lot would then comply with your current zoning regulations, <br />unfortunately to the best of my knowledge, this was never done. <br />*1 <br />4' <br />vKh•4 <br />jk* <br />• tV <br />1# ^ . k A ^ M k ^-1 •
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.