Laserfiche WebLink
. jB«P <br />e appllcani: would! <br />nee separation of <br />Id result in the <br />. ?he applicant <br />ither than a full <br />r application had <br />int to get general <br />to spending large <br />veys# application <br />to the applicant <br />and perhaps would <br />s total property. <br />westerly parcels <br />parcels^ and has <br />Lng that each lot , <br />system (mounds at <br />icroachments. The7 \ <br />ith the existing, t <br />le property has an(^ <br />lally requested in <br />^31/85. Applicant <br />3s to build on the <br />leveloped lot (see <br />le capability to <br />.1, and the other <br />to set a precedent, <br />, in the unsewered <br />lany as 28 vacant <br />adjacent parcels <br />request the same <br />legally combined, <br />ded. <br />Ferrells adjacent <br />sarance that the <br />not building site <br />at the same time, <br />the two westerly <br />ir that perhaps up <br />e valued much the <br />Lng taxes on these as <br />v. . . . <br />">■ <br />. ; . / <br />Zoning Pile #990 <br />Itovember 13, 1985 <br />Page 5 of S <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 />inersaents were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one <br />group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where se%fer is contemplated <br />to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded <br />although it is within the 1/2 mile radius. Those 38 or so houses are on <br />lots averaging 1/2 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 detrimental 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? <br />Tos <br />Frosts <br />Dates <br />8ubjec:t <br />List of <br />P] <br />and coi <br />techni <br />and pr <br />The po <br />drainf <br />situatd <br />court, <br />relati' <br />F; <br />buiIdi <br />past, <br />line i <br />of 1 c <br />Orono'i <br />applic <br />histor <br />suffic