Laserfiche WebLink
Io`, zo►�ING ©�Ce �� p�� �'X <br /> March 20, 2001 % 3/2-1 J O I 13 5 MtnT'"`e <br /> Dear Mr. Flanigan <br /> V;eorr, Sheri BJar+c�N fT,,, � cksGh <br /> We just received your letter of 3/14/01. The letter references a buffer zone agreement, <br /> but none was included in the envelope for us to complete. Please send this document if it <br /> is ready now. We had already made arrangements for the person who is moving the <br /> cabin to also remove the front patio. Thanks for clarifying this issue. We just wanted to <br /> make sure it had to go before paying for that extra work, since it was not mentioned in <br /> the Board's papers we got. <br /> Wade Rufshohn has already done the arrangements for the septic system. Is the form you <br /> enclosed on System Evaluation to be sent to him?? Do we need to sign this form before <br /> we send it? We have received papers from the state department already regarding the <br /> septic. We can send you copies of these if you do not have them. <br /> We also do not understand where/how you think the side addition of 140 SF exceeds the <br /> 144 SF allowance. Our original design was sent to you 1/20/0 1. When we had not <br /> received any response over a month later, I called to find out what the status was then. <br /> You were out, but your staff indicated the design, application and check were received, <br /> and that the buffer zone part was likely holding the permit up because of the snow. I told <br /> them that we would fax/ mail a smaller version of the original design,though it would be <br /> well within the lines of the 1s`plan submitted. No one ever advised us there was any <br /> question about or any problem with that original larger design. The revised plan has the <br /> same side addition, deck and rear addition, except that the rear addition will be 12' feet <br /> deep instead of 24'. <br /> We believe that we have followed your instructions and are complying with the zoning <br /> rules. unencrbsed'area berwrerr , <br /> addkietts; and we will make that clarification. However, the deck and all enclosed areas <br /> of new/renovated construction to the north are behind the "landward fagade line of the <br /> existing principal structure" as you drew it. <br /> When you met with us and provided the sketch of the buildable areas based on the <br /> Board's ruling, you told us that we had two options for meeting the 40' requirement, <br /> either: 1) cut off 9' from the front of the structure or 2) move the home back that <br /> distance to the edge of large slab on the west side. You drew in the "landward facade of <br /> the existing principal structure" and a second E-W line at the front of the slab. You <br /> explained that the area between these 2 lines is area where the 144 SF size addition <br /> limitation applied. Once we met the front 40' OHWM rule, you said we could then build <br /> another section/ addition to the north of the "landward facade" line, extending up to the <br /> 10' side and 50' road setback requirements. This section's square footage would be <br /> added to the SF of any side additon and the original structure's 606 SF, and could not <br /> exceed 1,500 SF total. You yellowed in this entire area as being the buildable area. <br /> Enclosed is an illustration of our plan drawn onto your sketch. We do not believe that, <br /> whether we cut off the front 9' or we move the home back and renovate the back 9' feet <br /> as part of the addition, makes any substantive change in this buildable areas under the <br /> rules. Nor did you tell us that there was any difference between these two options as to <br /> the buildable areas you illustrated. When I called months ago to explain that we were <br />