Laserfiche WebLink
ff <br /> • <br /> to exceed the one-acre minimum lot size required by the Orono zoning ordinance at <br /> • the time the plat was filed in 1972. <br /> On August 8 and 10, 1998, commission hearings were held in this matter. At <br /> that time, Respondent alleged that the highest and best use of Parcel 29 was <br /> • <br /> development as six residential lots. Respondent claimed that his right to develop <br /> the lots as six one-acre sites was "vested" and continued to be exempt from the five- <br /> • acre minimum lot size required by Orono's current building ordinances. Respondent <br /> claimed the taking reduced the size of the three lots in Block 1 so they could no <br /> longer be developed at all and that he should be compensated for the total value of <br /> • <br /> all three non-conforming lots. Respondent further stated that he only combined the <br /> property under a single tax identification number to simplify his property taxes. <br /> • The County maintained that, once combined by the Respondent and used to <br /> qualify for a building permit, the protection of the plat was waived and that Parcel 29 <br /> could be developed as two five-acre residential lots as required by the current <br /> • <br /> zoning law in Orono. Even if the Respondent had not combined the lots, Orono's <br /> "contiguous lot rule" would permit only the development of two five-acre lots. Exhibit <br /> • 7 (Orono City Code (OCC) § 10.03, subd. 6.C. Finally, if it was determined that if <br /> the taking prohibited the development of three, undersized, non-conforming lots, <br /> Respondent still had the ability to legally, without obtaining a variance, develop the <br /> • <br /> land as a single, larger, conforming, buildable lot. <br /> On November 14, 1998, the commissioners filed their award on Parcel 29 <br />• and found the damages sustained by reason of the taking at $226,500.00. <br />• 3 App. Page 6 of 35 <br />