My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1994
>
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2023 4:01:06 PM
Creation date
10/18/2023 3:53:03 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.
/
234
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 Fi'e #1951 <br />August 11. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Review Exhibit E. Weekman confirms that the proposed expansions will have no impact on <br />existing and alternate septic sites located to the north of the residence structure. <br />Review Exhibit I, the owner notes need to expand to the east and south of the existing kitchen <br />area within the first floor (Exhibit 1) fer a family room as house was placed right at required <br />side setback A strucmral addition could not be placed to the north of the kitchen as it would <br />have a major impact on the existing interior layout and overall concept/function ot current house <br />design. <br />Statement of Hardships <br />Please refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes the following; <br />The site consists of 23 acres but the topography has placed severe limits on the building1. <br />site. <br />2, Location of kitchen within residence requiring expansion to east and south. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Extensive vegetation exists along the south lot line and natural building site for property <br />to immediate south would be approximately 150 ’ or more from the north lot line or the <br />south lot line of the subject property . <br />The lots within Cristifori Woods PRD. refer to Exhibit C. all were approved with special <br />setbacks 50 ’ front/rear and 30 ’ sides. <br />Staff would add hardships set forth in Resolution #3090, Exhibit N. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Are the hardships valid for a house that is only two years old that was already granted <br />a street setback variance for new construction? <br />Why is it necessary to have the deck encroach any further into the south side <br />refer to staff sketch. Exhibit M.. At your site inspection, note the topography and the <br />improvements below the existing deck. Why must the stairs access at the south side <br />where there is already a substandard setback? There is adequate area and sim <br />topography to the north and east of the proposed family room addition. <br />Should the area of family room addition be reduced in size in order to minimize <br />encroachment of side yard setback? <br />4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.