My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-18-2025 Planning Commission Packet (2)
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2025
>
02-18-2025 Planning Commission Packet (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2025 10:05:33 AM
Creation date
2/20/2025 9:48:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Minutes and Agendas
Minutes or Agenda
Agenda
Meeting Date
2/18/2025
Board
Planning Commission
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
524
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FILE # LA24-000066 <br />18 February 2025 <br />Page 7 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />be in a part of the property that is more visible to the street and less screened overall. This criterion is <br />met for this request. <br /> <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land <br />is located: <br />The subject property and its adjacent neighbors along the east side of East Long Lake Road have <br />nonconforming lot sizes and would otherwise be ineligible to have farm animals as a conditional use. <br />Farm animals have the potential to impact other properties, especially when the physical separation <br />stipulated by the conditional use standards by lot size and setbacks cannot be met. This criterion is not <br />met. <br /> <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant: <br />The keeping of farm animals is conditioned on having a large enough property to create enough <br />distance to buffer the impacts of the animals from neighbors. Staff contends a conditional use permit <br />for farm animals on a substandard lot is not a necessity for the applicants’ enjoyment of their property <br />rights. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or <br />morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter: <br />Granting the requested variances would be inconsistent with the intent of the conditional use <br />standards for farm animals. The lot size requirement is distinct in its intent to limit the keeping of farm <br />animals to properties that are large enough to mitigate potential impacts from surrounding properties <br />and neighbors. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is <br />necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty: <br />The requested variances are not necessary to use the property as it is zoned. Although LR-1A zoning <br />allows for farm animals, the lot size requirement indicates only conforming properties of at least two <br />(2) acres should be considered for this conditional use. <br /> <br />The Commission may recommend or the Council may impose conditions in granting variances. Any <br />conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact <br />created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter <br />in the district where such land is located. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />The applicant did not submit signatures or letters from adjacent neighbors. One (1) public comment was <br />provided by a nearby resident that is opposed to the CUP, included in this packet as Exhibit F. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Is thirty (30) a reasonable request for the number of pigeons to be considered akin to an animal <br />unit on this property? <br />2. The Commission should discuss staff’s evaluation of pigeons as farm animals. <br />3. Should the Planning Commission be in support of the request, conditions of approval appropriate <br />to mitigate potentially adverse impacts from the keeping of pigeons, compared to fowl or similar <br />farm animals should be discussed. <br /> <br />206
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.