My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-20-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
05-20-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2023 2:45:57 PM
Creation date
9/7/2023 2:41:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
197
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
Zoning File 134 <br />May 16,1996 <br />Page 4 <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Given the ever increasing hardcover on this property, which now comprises more than 30% <br />of the entire lot area (compared to the DNR’s 25% standard) what is the justification for <br />allowing additional hardcover near the 75’ setback line in exchange for reductions in the <br />driveway far from the lakeshore? <br />Does the 1991 Planning Commission comment that the driveway is appropriate "as is" <br />suggest that its partial removal is not a reasonable trade-off today? <br />Is there a hardship that justifies the proposed hardcover trade-olTs? <br />Is the non-compliant lakeshore stairw ay and landing so far out of compliance that it should <br />be rebuilt, or should applicant merely be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for it, <br />leaving it as is? <br />Since applicant did not pay an after-the-fact variance application fee is there any reason he <br />should not be required to pay that fee? If the variance request is denied, should the after-the- <br />fact variance fee be required? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />In order to recommend approval of this variance request. Planning Commission must be convinced <br />that a hardship exists, and that the proposed trade-offs, or additional required trade-offs, will justify <br />granting of the variances. The history of this property’ clearly suggests that it currently contains <br />extreme excesses of hardcover, virtually all of which have been created in after-the-fact <br />circumstances. <br />If Planning Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend the payment of the after-the- <br />fact variance fee, and whether or not the deck variance is approved, applicant should be required to <br />obtain an after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairw'ay system. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval of after-the-fact variances, payment of after-the-fact variance and <br />permit fees. <br />2. Recommend approval as above, with specific additional conditions (addressing deck as well <br />as lake stairway). <br />3. Table for further information/further discussion.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.