Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 4 of 4 Staff has been able to locate no record that a variance was ever granted to Ferrell in 1959, and has no record that the City ever even reviewed his subdivision. The City adopted a platting code in 1955, the wording of whir-. indicates a plat was required for Ferrell's division, however, the Ccurccil minutes for 1958-59 and 1960 were reviewed and no mention of a plat or subdivision by Ferrell was recorded. Staff believes that the City likely never reviewed Ferrell's divisions or they might have recognized the substandard nature of Parcel 2, and if he had platted as the 1955 Code appears to require, he would not have been allowed to consider the road right-of-way as part of his lot areas. Staff Recoa ndation - Attached is a resolution for denial of the varian^es 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 th'.s 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 on_y if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. This tabling did occur in June 1986 and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item was reheard in May 1987. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional- building•-sit.e 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 dues 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 finding #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987, t -iplicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additio ubstantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application tc, -Yuest only 1- additional lot on the 2_0 acre parrwl instead of 2-additi_•nai lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by the City :.ouncil. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application.