Laserfiche WebLink
properties in these areas. <br />The smaller sub-itandard properties which cuircnlly do not meet ihe two <br />acre minimum arc not penalized in any way for their lack ofhaving two acres of <br />high gnnmd. Except having to seek and obtain redundant variances for nearly <br />every tingle property. There is no great value withheld ftom those o^ers <br />tl^ aell their smaller noo-conforaiing propertka. Why should ^ City persist in <br />unfiuriy harming any owners who did not previously divide their propetties Into <br />smaller Iota? Why should some individuals now, and in the fbture, be allowed to <br />subdivide while others are forbidden firom doing exactly the same thing? Over <br />time this is exactly what has been happening. <br />A variance by definition should be a deviation from the nomtsL When <br />nearfy all pro perty owners are forced to obtain variances over and over, fiic <br />variance becomci the norm and the City's purport^ norm of code fulfillment <br />and enfoceeroent is actually the rare exception. This is unreasonable and denies <br />reality. What it gained by such unrealistic behavior? <br />If the City is unwilling to re-zone or chaise the zoning, then a dear, <br />detailed, and exceedingly equally applied criteria should be established and <br />promulgated which will enable the great majority of property owners to ^lly <br />enjoy and improve their valuable properties. This criteria should also facilitate <br />all largier property ownefs easily obtaining variances to subdivide to an extent <br />which will match the actual surrounding propertiesC existing lot sizes, setbacks, <br />haidoover, and densities. This would provide a fair and equally applied method <br />to allow all of the larger property owners to eqjoy exactly the same degree of <br />property use and value that the surrounding smaller fwperty owners already <br />fiilly anjtty. If the variances are not easily given to til larger property owners, <br />then the unfalmeas continuea. <br />The City codes should acknowledge the instalUlioo of city scAer sytiems <br />and provide ths property owners ¥vith relief from codes and legyladoos designed <br />and ooneelved to deal with multiple septic system runoff which no longer <br />occurs. <br />The current situation and resulting problems are unfair to property owners <br />large and malL In additioo. the difTerently applied (between diffecM <br />individuals, diOerant properties, and over time) and the ever^changiiig variance <br />crilaria and grenting process has not treated all owners equally. This has cort <br />some owners very large amounts of aioney and greatly rewarded other ownen <br />over enct(y the same subdivision issues. <br />P.7 <br />The larger owners who have not previously been causing exactly the <br />probler!s that zoning is intended to prevent are banned. While the smaller <br />property own * * nrl currently subdividing owners sre disproporlionstely and <br />greatly enri'*’ d lur actually causing these exact same purported problems. This <br />is obvious^ unfair and should be corrected. <br />The future of Orono has alresdy been written, the forces of rapidly rising <br />property values, high demand, and changing buyer tastes will increasingly <br />divide the fewer and fewer remaining larger properties until a natural <br />equilibrium of market forces is reached. The total number of larger properties <br />will decrease until it exactly roatcliea the current number of individuals willing <br />and able to pay the true underlying property values. With every increase in <br />value, the number of potential buyers of la ger intact properties decreases. Even <br />a temporary shortage of buyers will lead to more subdivision and any later <br />appearance of more willing buyers cannot reverse the previous subdi visiom. <br />l4uger property owners cannot be expected to forever hold property or suffer <br />greet losses on resale when faced with no ready buyers willing to pay the true <br />undivided total value. Owners of sub-standard lots, who are the great ntajority, <br />also should not be expected to suffer resale loss or ruined use due to outdated <br />codes or face variance requirements for every improvement or change to their <br />properties. <br />Subdivision U the natural and inevitable method to utilize each portion of <br />every property to its highest reasonable value for all owners and Orono <br />residents. Artificially attempting to interfere with and prevent appropriate use <br />and any response to change will cause endless hardships and ultimately fail. The <br />forces of supply and demand and economic reality will force such change upon <br />Orono no matter what is attempted. It is not proper or fiiir to allow some owners <br />to maxkn’ize property use and value and illogically prevent others from doing <br />exactly the tame. <br />It makes no logical sense to allow adjoining property owners to utilize and <br />sell their properties so differently. Why should the smaller properties be allowed <br />to cause all the disadvantages that the zoning requirements exist to prevent, <br />while the laigor property owners are severely penalized for having so fki <br />prevented those ime disadvan* ea from taking place on their own property? <br />Why should existing hardcove noff, density, etc. be so tolerated on smaller <br />properties but any exactly stmiu. new property use which causes exactly these <br />same situations, to the same degree, be so forbidden to the <br />rt