Laserfiche WebLink
3001 Casco After the fact Variance Request <br />This after -the -fact variance request is consistent with the general intent of the average lakeshore setback <br />ordinance. The plans and survey for the property at 3001 were approved and permitted by the city of Orono before <br />construction began. The home is being constructed according to the approved plan and location. <br />Background: Adjacent Homes and Setback Consideration <br />During construction, the foundation as -built survey was also approved by the city as conforming to permit <br />documents. When simultaneously designing the two neighboring homes, the surveyor and architect based the <br />location of the subject home on an average lakeshore setback that results from the property to the north, 2975 <br />and the vacant property to the south, 3005. Note: A variance was approved for the lakeside setback for the home <br />on 3005. <br />Survey issues: <br />The city approved survey mistakenly labeled the covered portion of the lakeside patio as "Patio" rather than <br />"Covered Patio." The Covered patio is flanked by two uncovered patios, which were all shown as a single element <br />on the survey. <br />Surveys for both the subject and neighboring properties did not include the average lakeshore setback line, making <br />it unclear to city staff that the patio was bisected by the setback. While a requirement, the city overlooked that <br />this was not shown on the two surveys. The surveyor believed that, because of the average lakeshore setback <br />variance that had been issued on one of the properties (3005), that it would be misleading to show this average <br />setback line on the survey. He applied this logic to both properties. <br />While the survey may have lacked information, the approved building plans that were submitted with the survey <br />clearly show the patio as a covered patio (labeled as such and drawn in detail on the 3 relevant elevations, the floor <br />plans, the foundation plan, and the roof plan. <br />Timeline: Permit Application and Delays <br />Plans for the home at 3001 were ready for permit before those for 3005. An application was created on our <br />company's CitizenServe account for 3001 expecting that this established the application date. Delays in <br />engineering, discussion about drainage with the city engineer and design modifications led to a postponement in <br />finalizing the submission. The plans for 3005 were submitted days before the final application for 3001 on a <br />different account followed by the application for 3001 weeks later. The initial application went unused. <br />Conclusion: Impact of Timing and Miscommunication <br />Had the permit application for 3001 been dated just minutes earlier, this variance wouldn't be required, and the <br />location of the home on 3001 would be considered conforming. If city staff had recognized the nonconformity, <br />permits could have been withdrawn and resubmitted in the correct order. Miscommunication, engineering delays, <br />and transfer of the application resulted in the permit for the subject property being submitted after the <br />neighboring property. <br />