My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-17-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
04-17-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:44:01 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:40:04 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.
/
236
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
r <br />Zoning File #2014 <br />April 12, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />Start has no information as to the age of the residence but our guess would be somewhere <br />in the 40*s. similar in age to the residence to the south. <br />The buildinii envelope will increase to double the size of the existing residence. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Review Exhibit A. applicant notes that the majority of the house is located within the 0- <br />75’ setback area and located 1 + * from the south side lot line. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.If we are to provide applicant with direction regarding the improvement of the structure <br />Members should be prepared to address the following; <br />Will vou approve major expansions within the 0-75 setback area? The subject <br />structure extends 32 ’ closer to the lake than the residence structure on the <br />property to the south. <br />Will you approve major expansions to the existing residence located within 1-2’ <br />from the side lot line? <br />c.Will you approve major encroachments of the average lakeshore setback line? <br />2.Why must rear addition be installed in the substandard south side yard? Why can’t <br />addition be relocated at least 10’ from that side lot line? <br />3.Are we dealing with another Palm-type application? In other words, will we approve <br />major improvements to the existing older residence only to find out that applicant will <br />be later advised to rebuild a new structure? What is the condition of the foundation and <br />will it support improvements? Should applicant be advised to relocate all improvements <br />out of the 0-75’ setback area and within conforming side yards? <br />4.If a residence was to be reconstructed on property, would applicant be required to meet <br />the average lakeshore setback? The principal structure on the property to the nor^ is an <br />older small cabin that was remodeled. Based on current improvement trends in this area, <br />it would be staffs guess that this is not going to be a permanent structure for long. <br />Staff has raised some of the issues. Planning Conunission members will probably have <br />many more. Use the following list of questions for your discussion; <br />1. Will you approve the upgrade/improvement of the existing residential siruchu-e?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.