Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #990 <br />September 8r 1988 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />3. Council is cautioned to be aware of the distinction between <br />Ferrell's property and properties such as the Smieja lot on Cygnet <br />Place^ which was recently approved for buiIdability. The Smieja lot <br />had long been in single# separate ownershipr was not owned by an <br />adjacent property owner, and theisefore acquired substantial property <br />rights because it had few alternative uses available tc the property <br />owner. In Ferrell's situation, Orono's codes have long held that <br />properties owned adjacent to and in common with a homestead lot cannot <br />be built on if they or the homestead lot are substandard. The codes <br />have continually inferred that substandard properties owned in common <br />with a homestead residence have a reasonable use as yard area by the <br />homestead property owner and do not acquire building rights by virtue <br />of having been previously divided off. <br />Approval of the Ferrell's request would be precedent-setting in that <br />many other 1 acre commonly-owned lots in the unsewered residential zone <br />could request similar variances. Specifically, staff has identified 22 <br />situations in the City where we could expect similar variances to be <br />requested. Although 22 new houses on substandard lots out of 1,100 <br />existing developed unsewered lots is a relatively small number, building on <br />those 22 properties would not further Orono's goals to maintain a rural <br />character and avoid installation of municipal sewers. <br />Ferrell's current proposal to have 2 houses on 3 acres also would be <br />precedent setting, for the same reasons, but would probably have less <br />substantial impact at a 1.5 acre/house density than at the originally <br />proposed 1.0 acre/house density. <br />Staff RecGaimendation - <br />If Council feels that allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acre <br />property is appropriate, staff would recommend a referral of this <br />application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation <br />regarding whether the property should remain in 3 parcels or whether a lot <br />line rearrangement and combination should occur to leave just 2 total <br />parcels. If this item is referred to the Planning Commission, although <br />staff previously indicated to the applicant that it could go directly to <br />the September 19th meeting, due to unforeseen application loads, staff would <br />prefer that referral be to the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting. <br />-5-