Laserfiche WebLink
7. That the Applicant has stated that they have a large motorhome and fish house with a rooftop <br />air conditioner unit that require a minimum door height of twelve (12) feet. <br />8. That the Applicant has stated that the Northfork Architectural Committee requires the roof <br />pitch of accessory buildings to match that of the home, which increases the height of the <br />proposed detached accessory building due to the 8/12 roof pitch of the dwelling unit on the <br />Subject Property. <br />9. That the proposed detached accessory building would be located in the northwest corner of <br />the Subject Property, which is about six (6) feet lower than the grade where the dwelling unit <br />is situated. <br />10. That the increased height of the proposed detached accessory building will be compatible <br />with the principal building on the Subject Property due to the grade difference and the overall <br />height of the principal building on the Subject Property. <br />11. That the proposed detached accessory building would comply with all required setbacks. <br />12. That the proposed detached accessory building would replace an existing, smaller, detached <br />accessory building currently on the Subject Property. <br />13. That the detached accessory building would not exceed the allowable square footage for <br />accessory buildings on the Subject Property. <br />14. That the exterior finish of the proposed detached accessory building would match that of the <br />dwelling unit on the Subject Property. <br />15. That the owner of the parcel west of the Subject Property, adjacent to the proposed location <br />of the detached accessory building, has stated that he supports the request for the additional <br />height. <br />16. That the parcel north of the Subject Property would be eligible for an accessory building with <br />a mean gable height of twenty-two (22) feet based on its size. <br />17. That the parcel to the east of the Subject Property is part of a Golf Course, not another <br />residential parcel. <br />18. That economic circumstances alone do not create the practical difficulties. <br />19. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />20. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicant. <br />21. That, if granted, the variance will/will not alter the locality's essential character. <br />RESOLUTION #15-05-113 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />