Laserfiche WebLink
/ I <br /> • <br /> e. owned by the same entity. <br /> OCC § 10.03, subd. 6.C. See Exhibit 7. The lots owned by the Respondent meet <br /> • <br /> all these factors. It is extremely unlikely that the City Council would grant a variance <br /> from this requirement. See Exhibit 12. Accordingly, should Respondent attempt to <br /> sell one of the non-conforming lots or get a building permit for it, the City would <br /> require that he combine it with his other, contiguous lots until the resulting lot met <br /> • existing zoning minimums. Thus, even if the plat remained in effect, the City could <br /> require a combination of lots within the plat to meet its current zoning requirements. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> • <br /> Respondent combined the lots comprising Parcel 29 just prior to applying for <br /> a building permit. By doing so, he removed the land from whatever protection the <br /> • plat conferred in permitting the development of non-conforming lots rendering the <br /> highest and best use of the property residential development as two lots. <br /> Even had he not combined the lots or if this court determines that the <br /> combination for tax purposes does not obviate the plat, Orono requires that <br /> contiguous lots under common ownership be combined prior to development to <br /> • meet current zoning requirements. Under this ordinance, Parcel 29 would be <br /> combined at the time of a request for building permits to a maximum of two lots <br /> rather than six as Respondent argues. <br /> • <br /> This Court should rule that the valuation of Parcel 29 should be based on its <br /> highest and best use as two developable residential lots rather than six as a matter <br />• of law. <br /> r 12 <br /> App. Page 15 of 35 <br />