Laserfiche WebLink
' w . ^ ftfliMfcl’ I I <br />lat the applicant would <br />S0 since separation of <br />:y would result in the <br />i area. The applicant <br />sis rather than a full <br />Lmilar application had <br />»plicant to get general <br />irior to spending large <br />, surveys, application <br />ctlve to the applicant <br />ises, and perhaps would <br />on the total property. <br />: both westerly parcels <br />both parcels, and has <br />Heating that each lot , <br />Held system (mounds at <br />ire encroachments. The7 t <br />rty with the existing C <br />flat the property has an <br />cifically requested in <br />on 5/31/85. Applicant <br />iances to build on the <br />:ing developed lot (see <br />e the capability to <br />well, and the other <br />ing to set a precedent, <br />tion in the unsewered <br />As many as 28 vacant <br />with adjacent parcels <br />;t to request the same <br />been legally combined, <br />^divided. <br />s on Ferrells adjacent <br />i appearance that the <br />and not building site <br />edly at the same time, <br />that the two westerly <br />appear that perhaps up <br />s were valued much the <br />s paying taxes on these as <br />1 <br />A- <br />Zoning Pile #990 <br />November 13> 1985 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into <br />the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from <br />Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 <br />acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These <br />were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one <br />group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated <br />wO serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded <br />a X^I iou ^Ii it xs witlixn tl)6 X/2 iniXA tsdius* Thos6 38 oir so houses Aire on <br />i/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two <br />acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are <br />less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes <br />are letrimental to our long-term program of development without City <br />sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots, will not help that <br />situation. <br />Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building <br />site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was In effect turned down a <br />few years ago. <br />Are there any circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application <br />that justify a recommendation of approval?