05-13-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Orono Council Members From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: April 30, 1985 Subject: #903 W-rd P. Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - !�oning -ode Interpretation List of Exhibit; COUNCIL MEM Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners I,ist MAY 131985 Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit F. - Proposed Site Plan C Exhibit F - Staff Sketch of Lot Areas -@MV bit Exhibit 11 - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Andersc.i (Application #635) Exhibit J - Tax History Exhibit K - Minutes From Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/85 Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-1B zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a ;->>ilding permit for the 1.04 acre lot. In staff's preliminary review of this request by the appli- cant, it was clear that the application was nearly indentical to the request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in 1981., which was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. Based on the Alden Anderson denial, staff felt Council would likely not grant a variance for the Ferrell application. Rather than force the applicant to spend extreme amounts of money for the full variance application, soil testing, survey work, etc. only to be denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit a zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Commission of 4/8/85 and the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. Note that the informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most the applicant might be allowed one building site by combining Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. Please advise the applicant whether or not you will consider granting a variance to the rural common ownership section of the code.