01-16-1984 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Section from Comprehensive Plan : "Rural residential one-dwelling per two acre. This is the typical rural residential density developed and planned to be permanently self supporting in all of Oronc*s rural service area. No rural density will be allowed greater than one unit per two acre except for these existing residences and existing housing clusters as identified in the CSPP. New rural development may include housing clustering when environmental and site conditions allow provided the overall density within the development conforms to these requirements". So really in effect you have one supporting it and .. Mabusth - The two acre density is based on the environmental concerns. .no where in the rural area will this City ever go below 2 acre, thats what they feel you need for an on-site septic system housing separation, rural quality. Bur it also says in the north section of the City where the 5 acre zone is established is based on historic that the neighbors want and they have respected that. So given land use patterns sure we had some of those one acre patterns scattered around, but basically you look at the pattern of development in the northwest corner its large lots, hobby farm, greenhouses. Historic, its patterned by the land use pattern. Environmentally its no problem and its really no danger for 2 acres. We can't go on saying we* re going to bring sewer if we go to 2 acres, the majority of our rural area is based on 2 acres. Two acres is fine, your not in environmental danger extending sewer at that point, and we* 11 go on record for that. Your 5 acre zoning District war established historically, its the taste for what the people want. This came out in the year of the rezoning in 1974-75. Goetten - I also would like to read for the record a letter from the assistant director of land stewardship from the nature conservatory (see letter attached). Rovegno - moved to table the conditional use permit and the subdivision application since t^»ey both are meaningless until we find out whether the Council is willing to resolve this. On the rezoning issue, I*d like to note for the record that this is perhaps the most complete and certainly one of the most thoughtful plans that T have seen in the years that I have been here. It addresses all of the things in the zoning code that we tend not to get on applications which I for one always get upset about. However, this is a 5 acre zone its something very special and I' ve been trying to find some reason to say wo should do one thing or the other. .This is a very nice plan but its not the same as the rest of the neighborhood. This isn't a planned residential area of Orono - its a rural area - its kind of hap hazard and this is a different kind of character. Further I can't make the finding that it is in the best interest of the physical development of the City which is the only standard that we have in the zoning code. On those basis I move to recommend denial of the rezoning but further ask the applicant to continue with this type of plan and to come up some where along the lines of this so that it does meet the zoning standards because this is the kind of care and development that we would like to see. Mabusth - But the amenities is what he has been trying to say. You can't have the amenities with a 5 acre zoning, (interrupted by McDonald) McDonald - Hold everything there is a motion on the floor. I'll second the motion. L_...