Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> may be utilized for single family detached <br /> dwelling purposes if the Council finds: <br /> • <br /> (1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average <br /> width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and <br /> (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or <br /> • meets all the septic system requirements of the <br /> City or other governmental body; and <br /> (3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or <br /> other applicable ordinances. <br /> M <br /> (Emphasis supplied). Section 10.27, subdivision S.B. sets out the minimum requirements for <br /> "RR-1A" lots, which is the current zoning designation for Respondents' lots. "RR-1A" <br /> • requires a lot area of five acres, a lot width of 300 feet, a setback of 100 feet from the front, <br /> sides adjacent to streets and rear yards, and 50 feet for side yards not adjacent to streets. <br /> There is no evidence that the six lots would meet the current requirements of the Orono <br /> f <br /> zoning ordinances. On the contrary, the current location of Respondents' residence clearly <br /> violates setback requirements of the original Lot 1, Block 2. In 1977, Respondents only <br /> received a construction permit for his house because the cities relied on the legal combination <br /> of all six lots and Outlot A based on the statement on the building permit application that the <br /> house lot consisted of "all lots", that is, the entirety of Parcel 29. In order to restore <br /> 4 <br /> Respondents' land to the original six lot design and apply for the variance based on the fact <br /> that the lots were recorded prior to minimum lot size change in 1975, Respondents would have <br /> • to deal with the fact that their current house location violates setback requirements of Lot 1, <br /> Block 2. <br /> An owner may show the highest and best use to which property may be adapted <br /> regardless of whether it is so used at the time of taking. State by Lord v. Malecker, 120 <br />• 7 <br />