07-08-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Orono Council Members JL 8 �:`� From: Mich P. Gaff ron, Assistant Zoning Adminisoltib c ru, Date: June 21, 1985 Subject: #933 Ned Butterfield, 3745 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lA 5-Acre Application - Construct a new 40' x 100' Greenhouse List of Exhibits Exhib-t A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Proposal Exhibit E - Layout of Existing and proposed Structures Exhibit F - 1968 CUP for "Non -Conforming" Use Exhibit G - 1970 Survey of Building Locations Exhibit H - Septic System Layout (Approximate) Exhibit I - Planning Commission Minutes 6/17/85 Mr. Ned Butterfield is requesting to add a 40' x 100' greenhouse south of his existing greenhouses on this property. The property now contains a residential house owned and lived in by George Butterfield, and 7 greenhouses plus a service building. The property is approximately 4.6 acres in area excluding the road, in the RR-lA 5- acre zone. The current greenhouse use is regulated by a conditional use permit granted by the City on September 9, 1968 (Exhibit F). The non- conformity recognized at that time appears to be the wholesale and retail sale of flowers. Greenhouses are permitted as a conditional use in the RR-lA district. The applicant notes that retail sales on the property has been reduced to almost nothing (2-3 customers per month). Because greenhouses are permitted as a conditional use, if the wholesale or retail sale of fluders on the property does not increase due to the addition of a greenhouse, this proposed project would not appear to expand the non -conforming use. Do you have any thoughts about the mixed use of the property, i.e. residential home plus commercial greenhouses? Does it make any difference that George Butterfield, the owner of tho property, is not the applicant? He likely does have some interest in the business. If he did not live there, and the house was rented out to someone un- related to the business, would you have a different opinion regarding the use? If the house was not there, would you still consider the conditio_ia 1 use as appropriate; i.e. the greenhouse operation as the defined principal use of the property? These questions don't neces- sarily relate directly to the current application, but are long-term considerations. Planning Commission (lid not specifical ly consider these items in their recommendation for approval.