10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ouse-100 ac.4-; vacant ouse-l.O acre? vacant- >use-1.0 acre? vacant- -1.7 acres; vacant-1.1 use-0.9 acre; vacant - icre. of categories: !ls Is great enough tO arranged: A,E,P,I. ils yields only enough {ting house: C,D,L. Is yields enough area not enough additional ,K,M (these are very ^ denying the Ferrell ‘ unsewered residential ized lots, in single identified £ situations with a >s to lot area in order dentified (13 of these properties (excluding k Avenue, Crestview mplated) the existing 5^ 1 r.{, ■ t-.' yi ■M 5l r. ' i m v.f j % 4 exH.A.To:Orono Council Members Proas Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: May 21, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by Mr. 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 only 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. Allowing 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: 9 1 . 4.41. At the City Council meeting of JJny 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 further review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. -TO /A/rr caaJT-ts, yvA s'-o V ^uvvs ^-O i.-o ■ ■ mr WM fell ¥ i ■■■■■ ■■ * t •; .v- M ■ y' *.i .. j;.* • • • •• To Date: Subjei Mat < Discui cases prime broug] i' y f/