09-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

propert}' owners would like to individually, or as a group, purchase a portion of a property to obtain lake access or purchase an entire property' and divide it among a number of nearby owners tor the lakeshore. To ^lovv such arrangements w ould raise the value per foot of lakeshore to such a high level that many, if not all lakeshore owners w ould be tempted to sell small portions, or all of their propert>- for such uses. Veiy likely the resulting property ’ tax increases would force or persuade many more to do the same. Left unchecked, it could result in a substancial proportion of lakeshore changing trom single family residences to a proliferation of many small sUces of land serv ing nearby properties as purely lake access sites. This clearlv is not the future which the citv’s CMP and CiK Code book advwate • • • 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. Add to this subdivision, the proposed subdivisions on 1045 and a yet to be submitted additional partitioning of the 905 propert}- and you can veiy well see the pattern that I’m referring to. These are combining to effecm ely redraw' the properties surrounding our home. I realize pr'^pert}* i.nvncrs have a right to do as thev wish witli their land within limits. But the citv also has zonins and laud use reaulations for manv reason.s, which I strongly feel are present in this situation. There are a large number of sections in the Citv Cede book and the CMP w hich are directlv W 9 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.s are making private investments based on the concepts and information in the CMP and are entitled to know that they can rely on the plan. Certainly the same can be said for your zoning rules and regulations and tlie other sections of the CM?. -Ajid yet to allow propertv ow ners to change propertv- lines and relationships purely on a whim or personal likes and desires alone would leave all properties vulnerable. This constant change and uncertainty' would provide no protection from a w ide range of affects on each property's usage and value which would certainK result in a substancial number of these situations. There also is no criteria and predictable system in place to guide decisions regarding small divisions and redrawing of property lines such as we see occurring around us at 905. 980. 1045. and 1055 West Femdale Road. How could any potential or current oropcriy o'wner possibly anticipate and react to such an unpredictable and unstable environment or assess its potemiai impact in the fiitiire. Property owners should have an assurance that property' lines are more than merely a temporan agreement that can be chanaed at anv time and for anv reason.