10-13-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

» ) propert}' owners would like to individually, or as a group, purchase a portion of a propertN' to obtain lake access or purchase an entire property' and divide it among a number of nearby ou tiers for the lakesliore. To allow such arrangements w ould raise the \ alue per foot of lakeshore to such a high level that many, if not all lakeshore owners would be tempted to sell small portions, or all of their propert>- for such uses. Veiy likely the resulting propertv ’ tax increases would force or persuade many more to do the same. Left unchecked, it could result in a substancial proportion of lakeshore changing from single family residences to a proliferation of many small slices of land sen ing nearby properties as purely lake access sites. This clearlv is not the future which the citv’s CMP and CiK Code book advocate• • • for single family residential properties with lakeshore. I feel that the proposed subdivision of the 905 propert>' is a very similar situation in both the motivation and the result. .A.dd to this subdivision, the proposed .subdivisions on 1045 and a yet to be submitted additional partitioning of the 905 propern- and you can verv' well see the pattern that I’m referring to. i hese are combining to efteciiveh’ redraw the properties surrounding our home. I realize propoiye i.nvners have a right to do as the> w ish with their land • within limits. But the city also has zoning and land use regulations for many reasons, which I stronalv fee! arc oicsent in this situation. There are a larae w • 4 ^ number of sections in the Citv Cede book and the CMP which are directlv related to this application and those for adjoining properties. Page 4-3 of the CMP when discussing rural land use plans, points out that Orono's citizen.^ are making prit ate investnents based on the concepts and information in the CMP and are entitled to knoc/ that they can rely on the plan. Certainly the same can be said for vour zonin j rules and reaulaiions and the other sections• w w of the CMP. -^nd yet to allow propertv ’ ow ners to change propert}' lines and relationships purely on a whim or personal Uke<5 and desires alone would leave all properties \’ulnerab!e. This constant change and uncertaintv’ would provide no protection from a w ide range of affects on eac’u propertv ’s usage and value which w ould certainK result in a substancial nun:ber of these situations. There also is no criteria and predictable system in place to guide decisions regarding small divisions and redrawing of propertv' lines such as w'e see occurring around us at 905. 980. 1045. and 1055 West Femdale Road. How could any potential or current propenv' ovwier possibly anticipate and react to such an unpredictable and unstable environment or assess its potential impact in the fiiture. Property owners slu.nild ha^•e an assurance that propertv' lines are more than merely a temporaiy agreement that can be changed at anv time and for aiw reason.