My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence re LMCD variance application
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Casco Point Road
>
2965 Casco Point Road - 20-117-23-31-0063
>
Correspondence
>
Correspondence re LMCD variance application
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:57:07 PM
Creation date
3/29/2016 12:48:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2965
Street Name
Casco Point
Street Type
Road
Address
2965 Casco Point Road
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
2011723310063
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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).
View images
View plain text
. � <br /> Eric& Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo,8117l07, Page 2 <br /> 2. Code Section 1.07 states that"Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where <br /> necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from Code or <br /> may require a variance from what is otherwise permittetl by the Code, provided that such variance <br /> with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the <br /> purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use <br /> of the Lake by the public or riparian owners". <br /> In review of the proposed application for variance from Code,the Board should ensure that <br /> the applicant has proposed practical difficulties or particular hardships that are caused by <br /> the application of the Code. In addition,the Board should apply the following decision <br /> standards in the review of the proposed variance application. <br /> • Is the proposed use reasonable? <br /> • Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance? <br /> • Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the <br /> property? <br /> • Is the problem one created by the applicant? <br /> • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? <br /> The criteria used by the Board in the past to evaluate dock length variance applications is to <br /> establish four feet of water depth at the outer edge of the DUA, adjusted to the 929.4' <br /> contour. The applicants have documented water depths of 4 feet out approximately 58 feet <br /> from the 929.4'shoreline. Based on these water depths,the applicants have documented <br /> that a hardship of shallow water exists for the dock length variance. <br /> Staff does not believe the side setback variance request to meet a 3.1' setback from the <br /> north side of the site and a 0' setback from the south is reasonable. The applicant is <br /> proposing a dock and boat lift width of 14.5' on a lot with 20' of shoreline and approximately <br /> 16' of width between the extended side site lines at 58'from shore(4'of water depth at <br /> 929.4') because of converging lot lines. For similar sites with 20' of shoreline and parallel <br /> lot lines that were in existence on February 2, 1970,the maximum width of the dock use <br /> area would be 10'. <br /> This site was created on 1/23/1978 by a subdivision approved by the City of Orono. Current <br /> LMCD Code that defines the authorized dock use area for a site platted in 1978 has not <br /> essentially changed since 1978. The authorized dock use area (DUA)for this site is defined <br /> as follows: 1)The dock use area extends out from shoreline a distance equat to the site <br /> lake frontage(20') ,2)the first 50' of the length of the DUA requires a 10' setback from the <br /> extended side property lines,the next 50' in length of the DUA requires a 15'setback, 3)two <br /> or more adjoining site owners may, by mutual agreement, adjust these side setback <br /> requirements. <br /> Staff believes that it would be unreasonable to require conformance to the side setback <br /> ordinance of 10' because without mutual agreement from at least one of the two adjoining <br /> site owners,this site does not have an authorized dock use area. This dock and boat <br /> storage at this site has existed since 1978 because the adjoining site owners agreed to <br /> adjust the side setback requirements. The dock length may have been illegal if the dock or <br /> boat were stored further out than 20'from the 929.4'shoreline. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.