1975-03-11 Report on Variance - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

') continued, a considerable intrusion into the lakeshore open space presently existing from the Podany rear building line to the left, wo-ich is towards the lakeshore and would be visible from al of Halladay's windows on the west side of his home. 2)Photos lA and 1B further show this concern as they are taken from the den/office room, lA being taken at 90° to this window and 1B taken from a seated position at Mr. Halladay's desk looking to the southwest. The entcAe shy anea shown on the photo would be obliterated as viewed in IA and all of the sky area in the two wir dow openings to the right in photo 1B would also be obliterated. 3)Photo 2, taken from the lakeshore deck which leads directly from the living and dining areas on the main level, illuatrates by the grey tone the approximate building mass as proposed and viewed from this pre- sently private area, which when built did not antic- ipate encroachment into the adjacent Podany lakeshore setback or it would have been designed and located in a different manner. In summary, from my viewpoint as a landscape architect and land planner, the most most serious aspect of the proposal effecting the Halladay's living environment, is the intrusion of a subetant.iat buitd.ing mass into a vett' et.tticat anea oA tight and act cltcutati.on...... this visual and physical space is presently protected by a very valid lakeshore set- back requirement, which if allowed to be varied, would certainly adversely affect the total living environment. This open apace 6eet.ing was very important to the Halladay's when evaluating and subsequently purchasing their home. In my opinion this type of vested i.ntetest should be respected and protected by the governing body of Orno, not only with respect to the Halladay's. but for the long range benefit to all residents of Orno as their elected representatives. Re pectfu11 , V4 Donald K. Rippel landscape arch':ect/planner (I k r; d k r three of 'hreP