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 #2138 <br />June 12. 1996 <br />Page 2 <br />the nature of hardcov er, requiring a variance. Further, the new enclosure adds to the percentage of <br />lot covered by structures. The lot is only 0.23 acres, hence both lot co\*erage and hardcover <br />percentages are in excess of the limits. Note that current hardcover is actually slightly less than that <br />af^woved in 1990. because s^licants have removed more plastic from rockbeds than was required <br />in the prior approval. <br />Pertinent Facts <br />Lot area: <br />Front setback: 37.2' <br />75-250’ <br />EXISTING <br />10,001 s.f. <br />(0.23 ac.) <br />PROPOSED <br />Same <br />REQUIRED <br />STANDARD <br />43,560 s.f. <br />(l.OtK.) <br />VARIANCE <br />(E.xisting) <br />37.2'33.2’35'1.8’ <br />4,437 s.f. <br />(44.4%) <br />4,437 s.f. <br />(44.4%) <br />2,500 s.f. <br />(25%) <br />1,937 s.f. <br />(19.4%) <br />2,679 s.f. <br />(26.8%) <br />2,771 s.f. <br />(27.7%) <br />1,500 s.f. <br />(15%) <br />1,271 s.f. <br />(12.7%) <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.Applicants have provided no hardship statement, perhaps because the CUP form submitted <br />did not request one. Applicants should be asked what hardships exist to justify the variances. <br />2.Please review the staff memos of May 15 and May 22, 1990. The slab porch approved in <br />1990 required neither a street setback variance nor lot coverage variance because it did not <br />extend above the main floor level of the house. The Planning Commission in 1990 neither <br />approved nor closed the door on future enclosure of the slab porch, but noted that a future <br />variance application would be necessary to do so. Applicants were advised of such a <br />requirement as Condition 2 of Resolution #2811. Therefore, Planning Commission should <br />feel no obligation to approve or disapprove the current request based on any past action. <br />3.The property owners have removed most of the extraneous hardcover on the property. The <br />proposed plans show a doorway and sqjparent use of the rock and plastic area along the front <br />of the house as a walkway, which would possibly preclude the removal of that hardcover <br />surface. That 6'x32' area is the one remaining landscape area which could feasibly be made <br />nonhardcover. Will Planning Commission require any hardcover removals if the current <br />request is approved? <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.