My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-17-1986 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986 Planning Packets
>
03-17-1986 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2023 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
10/20/2022 1:20:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EXHIBIT * 2 <br />SIXTEEN NEW PROPERTIES ON CRYSTAL BAY -- A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT??. " <br />J. Mabusth, in a memo to the Council on October 25, 1984, reviewed the <br />properties along Crystal Bay and came to the incredible finding that <br />there were 16 commonly owned pairs of lots that could seek division, <br />resulting in 16 new residences on Crystal Bay, if the owner of a <br />similar pair of lots at 1620 Shadywood were granted the variance <br />needed to build on one of the lots. <br />I walked a mile north of my house at 1860 Shadywood and found eight <br />pairs of commonly owned lots (using the plat maps with outlined pairs <br />of lots provided by the city); in less distance to the south I found <br />another eight pairs of lots. The pairs of lots ranged from 80'to 150' <br />wide. Most were 100' or 120' since the original platting along much <br />of Crystal Bay was in 50' and 60' lots. <br />Of sixteen commonly owned properties, one already had two houses, one <br />on each lot; three pairs of lots involved one vacant lot next. to a lot <br />which held a house. The three vacant lots were clearly buildable. In <br />TWELVE. CASES the existing houses WERE CENTERED on the two lots in such <br />a way so as to cross the shared lot line leaving no room to add an <br />additional structure. <br />For the Mabusth "negative precedent" to occur, 13 of 16 property <br />owners would have to destroy 13 existing h-1mes worth an average of <br />$100,000 each to acquire 13 new lots with less value than the <br />homes that were destroyed to produce the new lots. This simply does <br />not make sense. <br />But it did influence the Council which in later findings neto-d that. <br />the LR-1C patterns of development in the Navarre area offered the <br />potential for 43 new properties if the application in question were <br />approved. This is of course absurd. <br />The facts fire that. if all of these property owners were <br />encouraged by the city to tear down their existing homes so that <br />they could (acquire a new lot to build on .. , most would refuse <br />resulting; in less than a half dozen new Domes. <br />And where is the evidence that the Crystaal Bay / Navarre areas cannot <br />accomodate a half dozen new homes'? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.