Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22,2002 and <br />recommended approval of variances by a vote of 6 to 0. <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to permit the 10’ <br />residential addition into the average lakeshore setback based on the following <br />findings of tact: <br />A. fhe intent of the average lakeshore setback ordinance is to protect lake view s <br />enjoyed by adjacent residential buildings. <br />B.Views from the neighboring house, located east of the applicant’s property, <br />wiHild be minimally impacted to the lake based on the side by side location <br />of the houses. <br />C. The house to the west is located approximately 120' from the applicant’s <br />house. <br />D.The applicant’s house is located at a much higher elevation than the house <br />located to the west. <br />i;.Because the addition is to east side of the hou.se, the visual mass of the <br />addition is not visible from the neighbors house. <br />By a vote of 6 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended approval for an <br />expansion of the detached garage. The recommendation differs from the applicant’s <br />reque.st because the Planning Commission concluded the size of the detached garage <br />should not be greater than 1,000 s.f. based on the following findings: <br />A.The applicant’s request to e.xtend the existing building by 12 ft. would result <br />in a building size of 1.056 s.f. The rational behind the recommendation to <br />allow a building with a maximum size of 1,000 s.f. is based on the code <br />classification of accessory buildings over 1,000 s.f in size. Any building in <br />that category is defined as an oversized accessor\- building. Oversized <br />accessory buildings are required to meet principal building setbacks. In this <br />case the building would be required to meet» 30' setback rather than 15'. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />fl>l iifirirtliiri