My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2016 10:05:02 AM
Creation date
1/13/2016 10:04:27 AM
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.
/
268
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
� FILE�'{53792 <br /> Novembet 12,2015 <br /> Pgge 5 of 5 <br /> 5. Access to sunlight: NA. <br /> 6. Use variance?: NA <br /> 7. Use as 2-family dwelling?NA <br /> 8. The condition of ha�ing a detached garage on a lakeshore property is becoming less <br /> common as the lakeshore re-develaps, but many such situation stll� exist in Orono on <br /> similarly situated lots. <br /> 9. The codes regarding hardcover and structural coverage and the condition of being a <br /> smalf lot are not uncommon on Shadywood Road, and therefore the conditions are <br /> applicable to many other lats in the area. <br /> 10. Having an attached garage, while desirable, is not necessary for the preservation and <br /> enjoyment of any substantial property right. <br /> 11. Granting of the variances would nat necessarlly impair health, safety, comfort or morals <br /> and might improve safety for the hameowner while not being in line with the intent of <br /> the Zoning Code in limiting structural massing and hardco�er on small lakesho�e <br /> properties. <br /> 12. Whether having an attached garage is merely a convenience as opposed ta soh►ing a <br /> practical difficulty is left to the P{anning Commission and Council to consider. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does#he Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonabie manner which is not permitted by an offlcial control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the varia�ces, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essentfal character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. tf the Planning Commissian concludes that the �ariances as requested or in some <br /> other manner ar configuration are justified, what conditions might be Imposed to <br /> mitfgate the impacts created by the granting of the variances? <br /> 4. Are there any ather issues or concerns with this application7 <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends approval of the side setback variances. If Pianning Commission determines <br /> that the practical difficulties test is met and the requested variances for hardco�er and structural <br /> caverage increases are jus#ified based on safety and the fivabElity of the property, then a <br /> recammendation for approval would be in order. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.