Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> building permit would not have been issued for the site plan presented by the Respondents if they <br /> • had proposed building their house on a single one of the six lots in the Mark One plat. Rather, <br /> the only reason the permit was granted was because the application specified that the lot to be <br /> determined in calculating whether the house met set-back, septic and other ordinance <br /> M <br /> requirements included the entire Mark One plat. <br /> Respondents claim that the lots are separated by a road and therefore cannot be combined <br /> to meet area requirements in the ordinances of Orono. This is not factually correct. CSAH 6 <br /> does not separate the two blocks in the plat and Outlot A only partially separates Block 1 from <br /> Block 2. The three lots in Block 1 may (and would be required to) be combined to form a single <br /> f conforming lot. The three lots in Block 2 may be similarly combined. In fact, all six lots may be <br /> and were considered to be combined for the building of the Respondents' residence. Outlot A <br /> was considered as a driveway serving that residence, not an independent road. There has been <br /> 1111 <br /> no allegation that Outlot A constitutes a road for the purposes of defeating a legal combination of <br /> the six lots in this action. Such an allegation would be incorrect. <br /> � <br /> Respondents claimim that they have put "substantial physical activity and investment" into <br /> the plat to justify a legal determination that they may develop it as platted. This allegation is <br /> incorrect. The parties agree as to what Respondents have done to the property. The cases cited <br /> a <br /> in Appellant's brief describe the type of activity and investment necessary to justify this reliance <br /> on the plat. In the twenty five years that Respondents have owned this property, they have done <br /> • almost nothing to develop the lots. They have simply not invested to such an extent that they <br /> may develop substandard lots in an area that has had a five-acre lot size requirement for over a <br /> quarter century. Mere purchase of the lots intending to develop them someday is not enough to <br /> justify the "substantial investment" requirement and does not operate to create or vest a right to <br /> 2 <br />