Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1160 <br />June 8, 1987 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />STAFF RBO DATION <br />Staff suggests the following; <br />1) Require removal of gravel north of garage. <br />2) Require reduction of driveway width in 75-250' and 250- <br />500' to 10' width, from a point 35' from garage to the road. <br />3) Require reduction of backup apron area to be no more than <br />10' deep by 15' wide (now it is 11' deep and average 27* <br />wide) <br />The above, per exhibit H, will result in a reduction of hardcover <br />of (432 + 132+125) 689 s.f., so 75-250' will be down to 3526 s.f. or <br />33.6%. And will leave 800 s.f. in 250-500' zone, or 18.3%. <br />4) If applicant cannot justify changes to the deck that were <br />apparently made without plan approval, staff would recommend <br />you require removal of 121 s.f. of deck to get the 75-250' <br />zone back to the 32.4% (3405 s.f.) that applicant was <br />granted permission for. <br />ADDITIOHAL C <br />Regarding the comments from neighbor Kane's attorney, I would <br />only comment that the grading of the Bury property is complete and the <br />drainage structure is in place. Having seen personally the non­ <br />functional status of Kane's elevated drainage basin prior to <br />cons-itruction of the Bury residence, and noting that Bury's drain is <br />set practically a foot lower than Kane's drain and will not only keep <br />Bury's drainage off Kane's property but will help to solve Kane's pre­ <br />existing problem by accepting Kane's drainage also, I fail to see that <br />Kane has a valid concern.