My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
08-22-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 3:59:52 PM
Creation date
12/16/2016 3:53:42 PM
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.
/
271
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 # 16-3851 <br />9 Aug 2016 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Septic System Status <br />The property is served by city sewer. <br /> <br />Practical Difficulties Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br />should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> <br />Practical Difficulties Analysis <br />Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the garage constitutes a practical difficulty with <br />respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The proximity of the house to the <br />garage further limits options. The encroachment of a corner of the garage by one foot into the <br />separation distance is minimal and does not appear to be impactful as a full wall encroachment <br />from a crowding standpoint. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />The public comments received are included as Exhibit I. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances as requested. Staff would also <br />suggest the applicant be requested to enter into the OAS covenant which states: <br />1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no <br />principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time <br />period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal <br />structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time <br />period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has <br />been constructed. <br />2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will <br />be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the <br />given size of accessory building. <br />3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall <br />remain. <br />Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the <br />chain of title of the property.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.