07-18-1983 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3fe in D Commission, ush for , >,. f .'1 r Pi* . r[#<',i Av* SUPPLEMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF QRONO 10. Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning code requirements: The only thing truly unusual about the parcel in question/ Lot 18/ Spring Park/ is that it remains unimproved. ® feet long by 54.36 feet wide. In area, the lot appears to be Although some of the lots in those subdivisions, such ** and 17 of Spring Park, have been conform with the current zoning ir terms many other lots, such as Lot 19 to tne immediate south J?' are of similar dimensions and have been improved. ^5® properties to the immediate north and south are both improved, and held by others, compliance witn the zoning c<^e is not possible by ^combining the^^lot with the other l°ts, and, although lot 18 was severed in 1977 from Lots 16 and 17, those lots comprised a conforming lot which does not require Lot 18 in order to meet the area and width requirements of the Orono ordinance. Since the lot is bordered by Central Avenue and the lake, no expansion of the lot is possible in those direction to achieve compliance with the area requirements of the zoning code. « 11. Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations. In this case/ strict enforcement of zoning regulations prevents the landowner from putting this land to any beneficial ample single family home can be constructed on the lot without violating the zoning district setback requirements. Municipal sewer and water is readily available, and indeed, the property has been assessed for those improvements. has at all times been taxed as an individual buildable lu^ For taxes payable in 1983, the property was taxed of $56,900, up from $49,000 for taxes payable in 1982. Plainly, the only reasonable use for this property is as Proposed. A denial of the requested area and width variances, therefore, would prohibit any beneficial use of this lot whatsoever. Moreover, the physical buildability of the lot is emphasi^d bv the similar construction common throughout the neighborno^. Similar houses on similar lots are common throughout the two subdivisions mentioned above, as well as lakefront. Unlike those property owners, however, this property owner will suffer the undue and unique hardship of owning a 1 ^. fe r mm similar enforcen district I i recognit City of is, asi< perfect! the nei< in forb; .12. De; and on Th' should neighbo water c on the conform No mat' anticip home a< sum, tc are to distric result. ;r