Laserfiche WebLink
properties in thete aicas. <br />'I'he smaller 8ub*standanl profieitics which cuncntly do iKJt meet the two <br />acre minunum are not penalized in any way for tlicif lack of having two acres of <br />high ground, lixeepi having to seek and obtain redundant variances for nearly <br />every single property. Ilitrc is no yrea! value withlicid from those owners when <br />thay sail thair smaller non-«:orjfonning properties. Why should the C'ity persisl in <br />unfairly harming any owners who did not previously divide their properties into <br />smallsr lots? Why should noma individuals now, and in the futuic, be allowed to <br />subdivide while othern aie furhidden from doing exactly the same thing? Over <br />time this la exactly whnt has l)ccn happening. <br />A variance by definition sliould be a deviation from the normal. When <br />nearly all property owners are forced to obtain vatiiutcea over and over, Uie <br />variance bec4Niiea the norm and the City's pur|K)r1ed norm of code fulfillment <br />and cnfofccinent is actuslly the rare exception. Ibis is unreasonable and denies <br />reality. What is gained by such uiucalbtic behavior? <br />If the C'ity is unwilling to re /one or change the zoning, then a clear, <br />detailed, and excenlingly equally apfilicd criteria should be established arid <br />promulgated which will enable the great majority of ixuperty owners to fully <br />Cf\loy and improve tlicir valuable properties, this entena should also facilitate <br />all larger piopcrty owneis easily obtaining variances to subdivide to an extent <br />which will inalrh ihr ai lual .surrounding properties' existing lot sizes, setbacks, <br />hardcover, amt •iriisilii*s Ibis would |)iuvide a fail and equally a|>plied metluMl <br />to allow all of the larger (Koperty owners to enjoy exactly the same degree of <br />jfiopnty uac and value that the surrounding smaller pniperty owners already <br />fully enjoy. If the variances are nut easily given to all larger |iro|)crty owners, <br />then the unfairness crHilinueH. <br />'Ibe (Nty codes should acknowledge the inxlallutiim of cily sewrr systems <br />ami piiivide the property owners with relief from codes and regulations designed <br />ami ciNiceivnt to ileal %vith multiple septic system runoff which no longer <br />nemrs. <br />Ibc current situation and rrsutling |iroblems arc unfair to property owners <br />larg^ and imall. In addiiicm, the diflerenlly applied (between difTerent <br />imlividuala, difTcient properties, sruJ over time) snd the ever-changing varirtnee <br />critrrta and granting procesa has not treated all owners equally. This has cost <br />some owners very la^ ainomits of money and greatly revrarM other owners <br />over metly the tame subdivision issues. <br />P.7 <br />*lbe larger nwrtrrs who have not previously been causing exactly the <br />problems that zoning is intended to prevent are harmed. While the smaller <br />property owners and currently subdividing owners are disproportionately and <br />greatly enriched fur actually causing these exact same purported problems. This <br />is obviously unfair and should be corrected. <br />Ibc future of ()rono has already been written, the forces of rapidly rising <br />property values, high demand, and changing buyer tastes will increasingly <br />divide the fewer and fewer remnining larger properties until a nntural <br />cxpiilibriuin of market forces is reached. Ibc total number of larger properties <br />will deemase until it exactly matches the current number of individuals willing <br />and able to pay Ihc Inic umlerlying property values. With every increase in <br />value, the number of potential buyers of larger intact properties decreases. Hven <br />a tmpomry shortage of buyers will lead to more subdivision and any later <br />ap|)carance of more willing buyers cannot reverse the previous subdivisions. <br />Larger {irupeity owners cannot be rxjiectcd to forever hold property or suffer <br />great losses on resale when fared with no ready buyers willing to pay the true <br />undivided total value. Owners of sub>standard lots, who are the great majority, <br />als4i should not br. ex|)ectcd to siifTer resale Iom or ruined use due to outdated <br />codes or face variance requirements for every improvement or change to their <br />properties. <br />Subdivision is the natural and inevitable method to utilize each portion of <br />every pnrperty to its highest reascuuibte valiir fur all owners and Oruno <br />residents. Artificially attempting to interfere with and prevent appmpnate use <br />and any respon.se to change will cause endless hardships snd ultimately tail The <br />forces of supply and demand and economic reality will force sudi change upon <br />Orono no matter what is attempted It is not pmper or fair to allow some owners <br />to maxinu/e pro|)cr1y use and value and illogically prevent others from doing <br />exactly the same. <br />It makes no logical sense to allow adjoining property owners to utilize and <br />sell tlieir properties so differenlly. Why shcmld the smaller protxutics be allowed <br />to cau.se all the disadvantages that the zoning reqiiiremrrns exist to prevent, <br />while the larger profierty owners are severely penalized tor having so far <br />ptcvciited those same disadvantages from taking place on their own prupeity? <br />Why ihould existing hardcover, runoff, density, etc. be so tolerated on smaller <br />properties, but any exactly similar new property use which causes exactly these <br />same situations, to die ame degree, he so forbidden to the <br />f.&