My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-17-1983 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1983
>
01-17-1983 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2023 12:57:09 PM
Creation date
7/6/2023 3:41:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
2 South <br />'ion of <br />liake <br />front yard <br />rine-like <br />:ed 3' to 4 * <br />inch Lake Road)• <br />between <br />applicant's <br />sac with <br />.1 de sac. <br />»sed off. <br />.ication <br />(d the site <br />from the <br />f way would <br />le hill at <br />n^h speed <br />( required <br />-■■■ *■ .. <br />#720 - Doug deMalignon January 12, 1983 Page 2 <br />I have rechecked the original survey of the property finding <br />the east access does not access through the neighboring lot as <br />shown on applicant's sketch, but is contained within the boundaries <br />of Lot 1 (see Exhibit B). <br />Now that the safety question has been answered, Planning Commission <br />must return to the pure zoning issues. <br />Our zoning code establishes a height standard for front yard <br />fences at 3.5’, The code fails to give specific guidelines for <br />setbacks for front yard fences (accessory structures) that exceed <br />the height limitations. You may review 37.100 that gives the <br />standards for required screening fences. Although it would appeal, <br />per ordinance 37.090,a screening fence is not required for this <br />property. Review Exhibit B again. <br />37.090. Screening Required. Screening shall be required in <br />residential zones where: <br />any off-street parking area which contains more than four <br />parking spaces and is within 30 feet of an adjoining residential <br />lot line, and <br />b) where the driveway to a parking area of more than six parking <br />spaces is within 15 feet of an adjoining residential lot line. <br />If we are to grant a variance, what are the hardships claimed of <br />the applicant. On the application, deMalignon claims the following: <br />"...we would have to destroy almost one-half the area of our extensively <br />landscaped front yard garden- -it is unreasonable to have our <br />garden destroyed for no practical reason." <br />Remember, a hardship must be a unique feature or physicial <br />characteristic related to the property. Can you make the following <br />fxnaings: <br />The special conditions applying to the structure or land in <br />question are peculiar to such property or immediately surrounding <br />property and do not apply generally to other land or structures <br />in the district in which said land is located. <br />The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation <br />and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. <br />The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair <br />the public health, safety, .comfort, morals or general welfare. <br />#720 - January Page 3 <br />The <br />to <br />Zon <br />The <br />con <br />dem <br />If the <br />on the <br />that ev <br />of way <br />If the <br />Options <br />a) App; <br />plai <br />b) App: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.