11-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■11 1 cS-tj ''OCT 1 8 1991 r Edmant: A’, F, Rydell 155 C)ron>) Orcharo R<.Md Long Lake, MN 55 55c> October 17. I'J'H Orono Planning Commission Chairman ancj Member ^ City of Orono P. O, BOx 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Chairman and Members, I have expressed my opposition to the development of the se\i.er property land which is lacross the street from my residence on many occasions. However, I came to realize that requiring Long Lake to accept the zoning requirements which all the rest of us are bound by would be the best solution we could get, and I reluctantly accepted this concept. It was my understanding that in order to comply with the two acre require ment, they would be able to get a maximum of 13 lots on the property. 1 am now advised that when the actual application. No. lo91, is up for approval, Long Lake wants the 13 lots but to do so they will have to violate theZ acre requirement; therefore they are requesting re oning to one acreR>l\. I am strongly opposed to this. They should be hela to the 2 acre requirement, and that should determine how many lots they can get. Dear members, I own 38 acres just across the street from the sewer property. At some point I or my heir may want to subdivide. 1 have always appreciated our 2 acre requirement and been bound by it in my planning. Because of a large amount of wetlands, I can only get about 6 or 7 lots out of my property. I love our open spaces concept and have never regretted this constraint. However, if Long Lake is permitted to rezone to one acre, there is no valid reason why I and others should not be permitted to do so. The value of my land would be almost double if this were permitted. There is no reason why Long Lake should be treated any differently than an individual. It seems to me if we make an exception in this case, we are opening a Pandora's box of problems. I don t think I would want to, but there are no doubt many landowners who would like to double their money on their land. They may bring lawsuits. The argument that an individual should be afforded the same treatment as any other type of legal owner may be powerful. We may be precipitating the ultimate downfal' if our whole 2 acre concept if this 1 acre rezoning is granted. Even >f we prevail, we may be su)ected to long and expensive lawsuits which we can ill ati«.. 1 strongly urge that you reject the proposed 1 acre re zoning of the sewer plant land. Sincerely,