My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
03-10-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 2:57:07 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 2:46:44 PM
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.
/
234
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
lot line rearrangement to help correct a non-conforming situation to the existing residence to the <br />south, 1214 Wildhurst Trail. The residence to the south is the subject property applying for the <br />after-the-fact variances. <br />Statement of Hardship: <br />The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be <br />asked for their testimony regarding this issue. <br />Issues for Consideration: <br />1. The error in the location of the foundation was discovered after a building permit was issued <br />and the residence was almost completed. Would Plaiming Commission require the residence be <br />moved to conform to the required setback for new construction? <br />2. The building plans submitted and approved indicate the eaves would not encroach more than <br />the 114* allowed into the side yard setb^k. <br />3. The eaves are not essential to the structure of the residence. Does Planning Commission find <br />any hardship to allow the eaves to remain as is, or should they be cut back to meet the required <br />setback? <br />4. The property is conforming to standards of the LR-IB zoning district. <br />5. The new residence did not require any variances to be constructed. It met hardcover, <br />structural lot coverage and height requirements of the LR-IB zoning district. <br />6. If Planning Commission recommends to deny the after the fact variance for the oversized <br />eaves, should the location of the foundation be considered in determining the size of the eaves to <br />be allowed? <br />7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends approval of the after the fact variance for side yard setback for encroachment of <br />the foundation. <br />Reviewing the building plans that were submitted and approved (Set U1), the eaves indicated on the <br />plans do not encroach more than the allowed 1 54’. Therefore, staff recommends the after-the-fact <br />variance for the encroachment of the eaves into the side yard setback be denied and cut back to <br />conform to required standards. <br />*03-2871 Dan/Sally Weatherly <br />1214 Wildhurst Trail <br />2/14/2003 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.