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