My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-20-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
01-20-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 11:15:37 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 11:06:01 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
520
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).
View images
View plain text
MM-2970 <br />January 20.200J <br />Pafc Sof7 <br />SiafT finds lhai there are convincing hardships to recommend approval of the side setback <br />variance. The applicant isn't proposing to increase the footprint but merely to add height, <br />not additional living space, to this comer of the home. The visual effects of the new. <br />raised roof only add approximately 5’ to the overall height of the home. It is also worth <br />noting that the setback at the southwestern comer of the home is 12 feet further lessening <br />any impacts to the neighbor to the south. Staff finds that a hardship exists because <br />additional living space isn’t proposed, the height increases are minimal when compared <br />to the entire home and the existing setback is non-conforming. <br />SufT would also conclude that a hardship exists to allow approval of the average <br />lakeshore setback variance. The hardship arose when the lot to the south. 2050 Shoreline <br />Drive, was built in 1989 in a location that now places the applicant s propertv in front of <br />the average lakeshore setback line. The characteristics of the two lots are quite different <br />in that the applicant’s property is accessed from Bay Ridge Road and the rear of the home <br />faces the lake and Shoreline Drive. Also, the applicant’s propertv is e\iremelv screened <br />from Shoreline Drive, whereas the propertv to the stmth. most ^fTecied bv ih .erage <br />lakeshore setback, is accessed off Shoreline Drive and the front of the home faces the <br />lake. The applicant’s proposal to change the roof line doesn’t affect any views this <br />proper!) has to the lake due to the following; the view lines point extremely northeast, the <br />property to the south has approximately 250’ of viewable lakeshore, and a significant tree <br />line sits along the applicant’s southern and lake propeny boundary further hindering any <br />views the southern lot may have. Because of these factors staff finds that conv incing <br />hardships exist which warrant variance approval. <br />Finally, staff would also recommend approv al of the proposed hardcov er variance 1 he <br />applicant is proposing a car port on the western side of the home, which has potential to <br />affect the existing hardcover. However, with the addition of the car port the applicant has <br />proposed to remove approximately 379 s.f of driveway and sidewalk. The car port. 22’ x <br />24’ is size, will be placed over existing driveway causing an increase of 208 s f of <br />hardcover. With 379 s f proposed for removal and 208 s f propt>sed new hardcover, a <br />net decrease of 180 square feet of hardcover is the result (see Fxhibit D) Because fKvst- <br />construction hardcover will K* lower th.in existing conditions, staff would recommend <br />approval as the applicant has made a good faith effort towards reducing hardcover on the <br />propertv. <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue <br />hardship" pertinent to this application; <br />1. “The proper!) in question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls.” <br />Bt\ aiisc the property is non-conforming %% iih respect to harJeover. siJe setbacks, <br />ami average lakeshore setback any improvement to the property bey onJ interior <br />remodeling u ould require a variance <br />2. "The plight of the landowner i$ due to circumstances unique to his propert) not
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.