10-21-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

crr.'C' C‘CN3 _ riT'*^^r31 'AjJliilL£l^U^o^U reef 1 8 1991 Edmund W, F, Rydell 135 Orono Orchard Road N, Long Lake, MN 55356 October 17, 1991 Orono Planning Commission Chairman and Members City of Orono P, O, BOx 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Chairman and Members, I have expressed my opposition to the development of the sewer property land which is aacross the street from my residence on many occasions. However, I came to realize that requiring Long Lake to accept the zoning requirements which all the rest of us are bound by would be the best solution we could get, and I reluctantly accepted this concept. It was my understanding that in order to comply with the two acre require ment, they would be able to get a maximum of 13 lots on the property. I am now advised that when the actual application. No, 1691, is up for approval, Long Lake wants the 13 lots but to do so they will have to violate theZ acre requirement; therefore they are requesting re'oning to one acreR-lA, I am strongly opposed to this. They should be held to the 2 acre requirement, and that should determine how many lots they can get. Dear members, I own 38 acres just across the street from the sew-er property. At some point I or my heirs may want to subdivide. I have always appreciated our 2 acre requirement and been bound by it in my planning. Because of a large amount of wetlands, I can only get about 6 or 7 lots out of my property. I love our open spaces concept and have never regretted this constraint. However, if Long LaKC is permitted to rezone to one acre, there is no valid reason why I and others should not be permitted to do so. The value of my land would be almost double if this were permitted. There is no reason why Long Lake should be treated any differently than an individual. It seems to me if we make an exception in this case, we are opening a Pandora's box of problems. I don’t think I would want to, but there are no doubt many landowners who would like to double their money on their land. They may bring lawsuits. The argument that an individual should be afforded the same treatment as any other type of legal owner may be powerful. We may be precipitating the ultimate downfall of our whole 2 acre concept if this 1 acre rezoning is granted. Even if we prevail, we may be sii^ected to long and expensive lawsuits which we can ill afford. I strongly urge that you reject the proposed 1 acre rezoning of the sewer plant land. Sincerely, Cj!—Q ^ irmiiMn'M-*--------- --------.■TiaiU'yriiiiiri'MWr'i'ir —-------------*----