Laserfiche WebLink
EXH. E <br />s-10 -�4-7 <br />To: Orono Council Members <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />Date: May 21, 1986 <br />Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell. 3405 Watertown Road - <br />Var.iances - Denial Resolution <br />Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by <br />Mr. Ferrell to construct 2 additiona-1 houses on his property. <br />The Council's procedural options are as follows: <br />1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. <br />Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for <br />the variances, if he so wisned, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. <br />2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable <br />only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional <br />substantial evidence he wishes to present. <br />3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- <br />additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some <br />members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more <br />favorably. In this case, Council could either cease action on <br />the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which <br />denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised <br />request is a change of conditions which was recommended for <br />approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, <br />1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would <br />be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not <br />commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. <br />Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his <br />request, the application be referred back to the Planning <br />Commission for turf -r review. <br />Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into <br />the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above: <br />-Au tit 9 <br />41. At the City Counci 1 meeting of1986, the applicant <br />was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional <br />substantial Evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application <br />to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead <br />of 2--additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right <br />to further review of this application by the City Council. The <br />applicant chose to waive further Council review of the <br />application. <br />yNN r'^ :� O <br />,A•f- 11-PPL 1 eANJ <br />¢ rvr,2&j " Ccti-� c p n�ov- 6� Pr'�z can, <br />yti�rK � y -G <br />