Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Petition 5601 (cont) <br /> The next RH-2 parcel (5 acres) to the south of the first was created by Petition 4011 in Jul '1987 The staff <br /> comments on that petition were: <br /> #4011 This parcel meets most of Albion's criteria; however, the density policy is: 'Non farm <br /> residential development is restricted to one lot per 40 acres within a farm unit....' <br /> This is the second lot proposed from a 50 acre parcel. <br /> In addition, this is a flag lot with a separate entrance onto CTH A." <br /> Therefore, Petition 5601 is in conflict with adopted policies since the density limit has already been exceeded, <br /> and this petition proposes three more residential lots. <br /> The Density Policy: <br /> Within the Farmland Preservation Plan policies, there is a policy on density in virtually all of the town plans. <br /> Generally the policy allows development of one lot per 35 acres owned--as of a specific date, such as adoption <br /> of the plan or adoption of the Exclusive Ag Zone. (In Albion the density is one lot per 40 acres.) There are <br /> several reasons for the density policy: <br /> • maintain an overall rural density <br /> • provide an objective basis for treating landowners fairly and equally <br /> • allow some flexibility for approval of limited non-farm residential development <br /> • prevent large subdivisions in areas that happen to have less productive soils for farming <br /> • prevent successive splitting of rural parcels into ever-smaller lots whenever someone makes a <br /> request. <br /> Note that the minimum lot size in Albion is one acre. Thus, the first RH-2 lot was consistent with the density <br /> policy. If the original parcel had been 80 acres, 2 lots could be allowed, or 3 for 120. <br /> The density policies work in conjunction with other policies, such as avoiding use of productive farmland and <br /> not crossing productive farmland to reach residential sites. There are instances where all soils are very <br /> productive, thus creating any additional lots would be in conflict. <br /> In this particular case, allowing these 3 extra lots exceeds the adopted standard for rural density; does not <br /> provide an objective basis for fairly determining the level of development, which can be unfair to other <br /> landowners; erodes the credibility of the adopted plan policies and leads landowners to believe that adopted <br /> plan policies have no meaning. <br /> 4_k - 1 3 <br />