Laserfiche WebLink
.J <br />building sites. <br />Planninq Commission discussed the proposed driveway <br />which will cross the designated wetland in order to <br />access the r r building site. It was noted that the <br />Watershed District has approved this crossing. <br />There were no comments from the public and the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Taylor, to <br />recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision and <br />con?itional use permit subject to staff's <br />a <br />recomMotion, Ayes 5, Nays Q. <br />WARD FERRELI, <br />3411 63415 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW <br />Ward Ferrell was prE,r,ent for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that <br />this application was reviewed approximately 6 months ago <br />on an appeal basis giving the applicant a general idea <br />regarding the City's policy regarding situations of <br />three contiguous substandard lots in common ownership. <br />All the Planning Commission members basically r.oncurred <br />with their opinions stated at the November 18, 1985 <br />Planning Commission maeting, that this property should <br />be divided into two lets only. <br />Mr. Ferrer stated that the City of Orono requested him <br />to divid e property back in 1958 so there would not <br />be futur( )blems wi..h building another home, and that <br />this fact ould be honored. He also no•:ed that when the <br />zoning r.ged froin a 1 acre to a 2 acne zoning <br />distric he was tcld that this :could not affect <br />existing ,ots. <br />Assistant Zoning Admiristor Gaffron reviewed the history <br />of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He <br />noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required <br />but a density issue a-d setting a precedent are open. <br />It was moved by Chairnan Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to <br />recommend denial of the 3 lots because it does not meet <br />applicable building cede criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays <br />3. Motion dies. Roveino, McDonald, anc. Goetten voted <br />nay. Rovegno stated teat he felt this is a difficult <br />decision because it seems that 3 lots would have met <br />code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald <br />stated that because o the many years o` ownership by <br />applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten <br />concurred with McDonalr in this matter anti stated that 2 <br />lots would be acceptable. <br />5 <br />