Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Tl'E 16:41 FAX 6126640221 MCDERMOTT. WILL R EMERY (2003 <br />Mayor and City Council <br />City of Orono <br />Page 2 <br />November 18, 1997 <br />We, apparently, have only one issue to be resolved before final plat approval, which <br />is the issue of the park fee. You should know that during the week of September 1, we <br />asked for a detemiinalion of what the park fee would be. We were told that the City <br />position could not be ascertained until after preliminary plat approval. We did not get that <br />figure until October 31 , more than a month after we appeared before you for preliminary plat <br />approval. As soon as we learned of the proposed figure, we were in immediate contact with <br />your representatives to discuss this. <br />While there are legal issues pertaining to the validity of the Orono ordinance and its <br />application to our particular facts, there are also certain equity issues having to do with the <br />park fee as it applies to us and, in this regard, ask the Council to consider at least several <br />facts with regard to this park fee, as it applies to our situation: <br />1. We have paid taxes loi 30 I- years on this entire property. We are not an <br />outside developer. <br />2. We arc creating two, large lots, each almost 4 acres, that will contain only two <br />families, who may or may not have children. These arc large lots, set on a <br />dead-end road, in the middle of the woods, creating very little demand on the <br />City’s park system. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Perhaps just as important, we hope the Council will take into account the fact <br />that 3.465 acres, out of our 11.1 acres, or over 31% of our land (plus a 26- <br />foot wetland buffer zone around each of the four wetland basins) has already <br />been taken for drainage easements, conservation easements, marshlands, road <br />dedication, and even a "vegetative and screening buffer" for a house that was <br />non-conforming when built, built on one acre, and built on land that was not <br />entirely dry, buildable land, and, which was in a two-acrc zone. This 3.465 <br />acres, as so encumbered, according to tlie City’s valuation of our land, has a <br />land value of $76,230. By encumbering this acreage with the noted <br />easements and restrictions, we are making a significant contribution of our <br />land, even if no park fee was imposed. We think that this dedication of land <br />for public purposes, and par:icularly open space, drainage, conservation, and <br />scenic screening purposes, should have some equitable bearing on the <br />Council ’s decision on both tlie legality and the appropriateness of the proposed <br />park dedication fee. <br />As importantly, all of the d©;isions that have been made on our plat have <br />resultv'.d in us receiving two buildable lots, r.uher than the three that we had <br />anticipated because of our alAiost 12 acres in a two-acre zone. <br />Plus, Sl‘^000 is a large amount of money. For us, who rely on our earnings <br />for our support, this is a significant sum.