Laserfiche WebLink
JUL, l. 'LUUb l I .47HIVI UH►V�tnnr �vNirni�r ��� �r� i � �+ <br /> 10, The existing deck is a major seiling point and a value to my property. <br /> 1 find it par�ticularly offensive that staff recommends me paying someone <br /> ' to reduce the value of my existing property. l do not have a walkout house. � <br /> The appearance o� the deck from the IaKe does not significantly ch�nge by <br /> cutting i� baGk. I am planning to minimize the appearance a� the lattice <br /> work with greenery. <br /> 11. The planning board's suggestion that they can't remember gtanting <br /> any side setback variances seems to be un�rue even in my own n�iborhood. <br /> My builder assures me of at least two 2nd story variances he is familiar <br /> with on Casco Point that did not require reductians in existing hardcover. <br /> I realize every case is a little different, but it doesn't appear we are <br /> asking for any groundbYeaking variances- which was a(so voiced to us by <br /> M�lany at our pre ap�lication m�eting, <br /> , �2. We are anxious to get starfied and hope you can see our position in a , <br /> favorable light. If not, t guess its on to city council. Thank you for your <br /> time in reviewing my application. <br /> 13, To clarify my posifion, I will accept: <br /> A, Proposed reduction in deck and misc. hardcover reductions (see A} in <br /> exchange for garage corne'r to gain poo�line changes. <br /> � B, No reduction in deck and no garage corner to gain roo�line changes (see <br /> B). <br /> C. No roofline changes and no decWhardcover concessions fo remodel main <br /> level(no action needed by planning board}. <br />