10-15-2009 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hallan agreed that there should be a temporary construction easement that includes �. restoration of the neighbor's lot to its original condition. Public Comment: None. Mr. Hallan asked how the dwelling would appear as viewed from the lake. Staff indicated the dwelling would not be any higher than neighboring dwellings and would not block any views. Mr. Hallan further stated a reference point should be established for the first floor elevation. He suggested either 1253 or 1252.5. Mr. Habein stated there is a fairly new accessory structure that is now higher than the dwelling. Once the dwelling is raised, it will be in better balance with the accessory structure. A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Bill Habein, to approve the Variance request based on the following Findings of Fact: For a Variance to Enlarge a Non-Conforming Structure 1. The Ordinance would allow repair to the existing foundation, but not expansion. However, the expansion of a basement and walkout as proposed is inconsequential. The footprint is not expanded and the intensity of the overall structure is not increased. Deny this proposed use would create an undue hardship. 2. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would be impractical because the expansion is inconsequential and incidental to the repair of the foundation. 3. A deviation, with conditions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance as the foundation on the existing dwelling is in need of repair and the proposed basement is an inconsequential and incremental addition to the repair proj ect. 4. The proposed residential use is permitted in the Shoreline Residential zone. 5. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Adjacent properties have homes that have basements and small, non-conforming lots. 6. Reasonable use of the property currently exists as residential use is already established, but the repair and expansion project, as proposed, is a minor and reasonable approach. On the construction on a non-conforming lot: 7. Strictly applying the minimum lot width and size requirements would prohibit any construction on the property and thereby creates an undue hardship. 8. The lot size, which was not created by the land owner, creates a situation where strict adherence to the Ordinance would be impractical. 9. A deviation to provide for construction on a non-conforming lot would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which would be to provide for residential construction on the property. 10. The proposed residential use is permitted in the Shoreline Residential zone. Minutes 3 Pequot Lakes Planning Commission October 15, 2009