Laserfiche WebLink
It was during these discussion which the property owTiers decided not to construct the addition on <br />the east side of the residence. Instead, they are proposing slightly larger decks and changing one <br />of the decks into a screen porch, both are on the lakeside of the residence. <br />I he proposed changes are as follows: (E.xhibit B) <br />1. Addition (*'A") on the east will be not be constructed. <br />Approved for 344 s.f. <br />Decrease of 344 s.f. <br />2. Deck ’“B" will be a screen porch. <br />Approved for 84 s.f <br />Proposing 141 s.f <br />Increase of 57 s.f <br />3. Deck“C" <br />Approved for 198 s.f <br />Proposing 337 s.f <br />Increase of 139 s.f <br />The harda>\er in the 0-75' setback /one was approved at 4,413 s.f (15.3%). The new proposal <br />reduces the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. It will decrease by 180 s.f to 4.233 s.f (15.0'*o). <br />The lot coverage by structures was approved at 3.410 s.f (7.7%). The new proposal reduces the <br />lot coverage by structures. It will decrease by 148 s.f to 3.262 s.f (7.4 “/o). <br />The location of the structure is what changes. I he proposal incorporates nu)re structure in the 0- <br />75' setback zone on the lake side of the residence, rather than on the side of the residence further <br />from the lake. (See E.xhibit B). The propo.sed deck and .screen porch are approximately 40' from <br />the lake and arc not the two stor>’ addition previously approved. I he deck and screen porch do <br />not affect anv adjacent properties. The house and garage are both located in the 0-75' setback <br />zone. I he residence was built prior to current zoning standards. <br />.Statement of Hardship: <br />The application should be asked for his testimoin regarding this issue. <br />Issues for Consideration: <br />1. 1 he residence and garage are both located in the 0-75' setback zone. <br />"01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark <br />8 1 .s Panenwood <br />Variance Changes <br />page 2 of 3