Laserfiche WebLink
CSPW'wjpjSJfT-IS.ig Administratortown Road - <br />setback variance required fo <br />existing residence. <br />ling of the existing residence <br />citchen addition, interior <br />and residing with cedar. The <br />district, requiring a minimum <br />latted per the current RR-IA <br />ime could have asked that the <br />ts 1 and 2, McCulley Farm be <br />:;re area standard and the 300* <br />(tter that contends that they <br />d improvement of the property. <br />it D) includes the following <br />tement that notes the property <br />standards. McCulley Farm was <br />le location of the house to the <br />does create a hardship for the <br />mm'KM..i• jl^ ' ■ft'-’-'av''w rnmm <br />m <br />i <br />. - <br />mt <br />4'' <br />my :nm <br />mVfn <br />m i.if.4 <br />>« <br />•■ » <br />'If Jr::.* <br />‘ liy. <br />“/'-’I' <br />% - <br />.T mmmmIM;..- ,;ill <br /><f <br />, ' , .4 <br />wmAAmm-'4 <br />.tv* y <br />rnwy^m <br />m <br />f;'tiwm|v.i*i| <br />mmm <br />r./. I' •■•11 <br />fS-iii <br />PI <br />-'■■yyyA.:-} <br />■m>^‘ ■.«,:•»\mmm Eiilfllt:v^:V:r ■ • •> :claims that the interior layout or floor plan of the ires that the family room/kitchen be installed to the lis residence. Review Exhibit G, it is not apparent to kitchen/faoiily room addition need to be located to the lining room is shown to the extreme east of the house, plicant's contractor should clarify. .r there is adequate separation between the garage and <br />tructure to relocate the addition along the south side <br />e. The location of the well and drainfield areas will <br />nsion to south or east (review Exhibit H). Once again <br />8 the applicant considered all available options for <br />o the west may be more controlled by architectural <br />isign concerns for total complete structure. Planning <br />determine that this is a valid consideration. Are <br />essory improvements on the south side of the house that <br />noted? Staff observed a fence and plantings. There <br />1/topographic features that were observed at the site <br />:ant claims that there would be no detriment to the <br />safety or welfare if the proposed addition was <br />allable to Planning Cumsdsalon •* <br />3 on findings and hardships noted in applicant's <br />that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient or <br />ships to necessitate the approval of a setback variance <br />one. <br />lew of the application pending further review by <br />Kview all available options for the expansion of the <br />ince. <br />U* V ‘. <br />PC' '' '--m <br />-i <br />•.• V’ ,.■ ■ -■•■ <br />ki' <br />wSmcSMI