Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-28 177 AE ORDINANCE177 AS Introduced by Councilor mcevnan, conch 28, 1977 CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) (ffir11Rt211U21 Amazing at ng oralnanne„at 866 Kenduekeag Avenue _... Be it ordairud by to t city CouneSt of the City of Bangor, as fWoma: THAT the zoning boundary lines as established by the Zoning Map of the City of Bangor dated September 23, 1974, as amended, be hereby further amended as follows: By changing a parcel of land at 866 Kenduskeag Avenue from Residential t zone to the Residential 2 zone. Said parcel containing approximately 1/3 acre and more particularly described on the two attached hereto and made apart hereof. IN CITY CWNCIL March 28, 1977 Received let reading, referred to Punning Board, consider exmeting. eting. xtn!/ ➢d CITY COUNCIL April IT, 1977 Received 2w reading. Planning Board report read. Passed by the follhring yes and no voter Councilors voting yes: Finnigan, Gare, Henderson, McKernan, Corby, Shales, Willey and Zerdaian. Councilor Hrountas absent. 121ol , f CITY C 177 AE ORDINANCE 3aN ( Trn,N.) Anew. Zoning ordin. at f� In roducv] flood W \ 1Y01 ) ca \i. \V.( T NcN n Cauc ELm PEGEIYEI) PITY GF VA.'PP. CITY OLEP.R'S UPOE -'77 hit 24 Ptl 4 29' Baagop the renter ofMaina—ebe Gaee"y & Mame't North Wood and Sanbore Res arts HATE: April 5. 19W 'lb: The Honorable City Council PROM: as Planning Board SUBJECT: Amending 'Inning Ordinance 810 State Street Council Order 17EAE Please be advised that the Planning Beard held a Public Hearing on 11 April 4, 19W on the above request. - The Planning Board gave careful consideration to the proposed change to Commercial 2, the purpose for such a change and to the effect such a change would have on the general area. Me Board also considered the opinions expressed by those apposed tothe change. After consideration of the proposal and the effect a commercial change would have on the entire, the Planning Board voted un ly to disapprove the request for a zone change for the following; aeons. 1. That the proposed zone change would adversely affect adjoining residential uses which were already experiencing difficulty with existing commercial _development in the a as sulk of nurse and traffic 2. Mat ane from Residential 1 to Commercial 2 represented significant charge and increase in intensity of use which would not be a benefit to surrounding property. 3. That while the site has unique physical characteristics, there overwhelming no evidence that the parcel could act be used for residential purposes. _ Tac J. ascaglial Senior Planner SSM:1g1