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 due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br /> 20. That the plight was not created by the Applicant. <br /> 21. That, if granted,the variance will not alter the locality's essential character. <br /> RESOLUTION#15-05-113 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />