Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> � 0_�20N0 COUNCIL MEETING FiELD SEPTEPZBER 27, '976 Page 15 <br /> � TZr. Becker asked why should the Planning Commission SUBDIVISION <br /> � r�vie�a this plat again? 511 North Ferndale Road <br /> (Continued) <br /> � TZro Van Nest, Planning Commission member, answered <br /> by stating that Lot #1 has to be determined a build- <br /> � able lot. (Will it support a disposal system?) <br /> The Planning Commission had a 7 Ayes 0 Nays vote <br /> r to deny, i��ro Becker was informed to bring it back <br /> to the Commission for further review when other <br /> � data was availablee <br /> � Pir, Van Nest continued by stating that Lot ��1 is <br /> � 23o short of dry buildable land and the total plat <br /> is 6% shorto <br /> • <br /> r�Iro Becker again requested to reapportion the <br /> � lots, <br /> �Councilmember Walter rlassengale commented that <br /> ,, there was adequate grounds to reconsider motion, <br /> Additional land is needed to bring the proposed <br /> �subdivision up to Orono° s standards. <br /> •Pliotiono Ayes (3) - Nays (0} o <br /> �IZre Johnson stated that_policies were changinge <br /> �yor Searles reminded P4ro Johnson that the <br /> �record and previous Planning Comrnission P7inutes <br /> are clear. <br /> • <br /> Searles moved, IIutler seconded, to refer the <br /> �subdivision for Klaus 3ecker, 511 North Ferndale <br /> Road, to the Planning Commission based on new <br /> �information receivedo P�otion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0) , <br /> • <br /> � At 10025 P.I�7, , Robert GVyatt arrived, SUBDIVISION <br /> 4220 T�Tatertown Road <br /> 1 i4r, Robert Wyatt arrived and was asked if he <br /> had any questions related to the status report <br /> � previously presented to the Council by the <br /> � Bui].dinc� & Zoning Administrator, <br /> r T1r o ��lyatt requested the City Council to consider <br /> his subdivision request as an exception to the <br /> � present zoning code, <br /> � Councilrnember 6�lalter TZassengale replied that <br /> public interest and the applicants best interest <br /> � is not being justly served to approve a plat when <br /> all the information is incompletea T3r. Van Nest <br /> lso repl.ied by stating that Tir. Wyatt does not <br /> «eet an exception to the present code because <br /> all conditions have not been met. The final plat <br /> �was rejected because the plat is inadequate as <br /> submitted and does not meet the codes or <br /> � statutory requirements, (Continued) <br /> � <br />