Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 5 of 6 3. Council is cautioned to be aware of the distinction between Ferrell's property and properties such as the Smieja lot on Cygnet Place, which was recently approved for buildability. The Smieja lot had long been in single, separate ownership, was not owned by an adjacent property owner, and therefore acquired ^ubstantial property rights because it Lad few alternative uses avail_ le to the property owner. In Ferrell's situation, Orono's codes have long held that properties owned adjacent to and in common with a homestead lot cannot be built on if they or the homestead lot are substandard. The codes have continually inferred that substandard properties owned in common with a homestead residence have a reasonable use as yard area by the homestead property owner and do not acquire building rights by virtue of having been previously divided off. Approval of the Ferrell's request would be precedent -setting in that many other 1 acre commonly -owned lots in the unsewered residential zone could request similar variances. Specifically, staff has identified 22 situations in the City where we could expect similar variances to be requested. Although 22 new houses on substandard lots out of 1,100 existing developed unsewered lots is a relatively small number, building on those 22 properties would not further Orono's goals to maintain a rural character and avoid installation of municipal sewers. Ferrell's current proposal to have 2 houses on 3 acres also would be precedent setting, for the same reasons, but would probably have less substantial impact at a 1.5 acre/house density than at the originally proposed 1.0 acre/house density. Staff Recommendation If Council feels that allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acre property is appropriate, staff would recommend a referral of this application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation regarding whether the property should remain in 3 parcels or whether a lot line rearrangement and combination should occur to leave just 2 total parcels. If this item is referred to the Planning Commission, although staff previously indicated to the applicant that it could go directly to the Septemberl9th meeting, due to unforeseen application loads, staff would prefer that referral be to the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting.