My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
06-17-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2023 3:21:07 PM
Creation date
9/13/2023 3:17:23 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.
/
227
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 #2134 <br />May 16.1996 <br />Page 4 <br />Issues for Considentioo <br />1.Given the ever increasing hardcover on this propeit>-, 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 fat from the lakeshore? <br />2.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 />3. <br />4. <br />Is there a hardship that justifies the proposed hardcover trade-offs? <br />Is the non-compliant lakeshore stairway 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 />5.Since . pplicanl did not pay an after-the-fact variance application fee is there any reason he <br />sh: rot be lequired to pay that fee? If the variance request is denied, should the after-the- <br />fact variance fee be required? <br />Staff Utco^^-ftdation <br />In order to u».oimnend approval of this variance request, Planning Commission must be con^iiccd <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 prop>erty clear!) 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 stairway 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 (addxessing deck as well <br />as lake stairway). <br />3. Table for further information/further discussion. <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.