10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mm ►use-100 ac,+; vacant- use-1.0 acre; vacant ise-1.0 acre; vacant- 1.7 acres; Vacant-1.1 se-0.9 acre; vacant - ;re. f categories: s Is great enough to rranged: A,E,F,I. s yields only enough Ing house: C^DfL. s yields enough area not enough additional K,M (these are very denying the Ferrell insewered residential ed lots, in single ientified situations with a to lot area in order sntified (13 of these >roperties (excluding i Avenue, Crestview nplated) the existing 1-1 mi mm •y-- €XH.£ fo:Orono Council Members Froll:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:May 21, 1986 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Eoad - Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requestedl by Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable onlx if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6—month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Aixowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of 1986, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2—additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to furi-her review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. yvA TC? APP(__I CAaJ-T^ CO