Laserfiche WebLink
t-v-’r'-.x <br />To: Planning Commission Members <br />r^^iq -g*7From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator "* ' <br />Date: February 6, 1986 <br />Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - <br />Variances - ,date to Memo of November 13, 1985 <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Memo of 11/13/85 With Exhibits <br />Exhibit B - Survey of Property With Existing House <br />Exhibit C - Soils Report, Site Plan For Existing House <br />Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85 <br />Bxh, PcAfO <br />Mr. Ferrell has now submitted the additional survey and <br />soils report to show an alternate drainfield site for the <br />existing house. Given no future encroachments, there is adequate <br />area on the lot with the existing house to replace the septic <br />system with a fully conforming system. <br />Please review the memo of 11/13/85. As noted in that memo <br />and considering the additional information submitted, it appears <br />technically possible to place a house, garage, driveway, well, <br />and primary and alternate septic systems on each of the lots. <br />The possible house location would be somewhat limited by the <br />drainfield sites. There would be potential conflicts if a <br />situation occurred where an extremely large house, pool, tennis <br />court, etc. were proposed. The properties lend themselves to <br />relatively low levels of development. <br />Finally, from a zoning code standpoint, even if only one new <br />building site is granted, this is precedent setting. In the <br />past. Council and Planning Commission have generally held the <br />line in similar unsewered common ownership situations. Approval <br />of 1 or 2 new building sites might have long-term impact on <br />Orono's effectiveness in avoiding sewer. Weigh this against the <br />applicant's real and preceived rights as a property owner and the <br />history of zoning code changes over the years. Are there <br />sufficient justifications to grant a variance?