My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1980
>
07-21-1980 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:06:12 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:04:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
out thut the variance ordinance permitted a variance for hardship <br />only if the hardship "has not been created by any persons presently <br />having an interest in the parcel of land." The court approved the <br />variance because "to take away from this lot the right to a vari <br />ance by the adoption of this ordinance would he, as the trial court <br />found, a violation of due process in that it would deprive the <br />property of any value." <br />By this last expression the court seems to have been <br />considering the lot alone as being a unit which could not be taken <br />from the owner without rendering it valueless. This is an attribute <br />of a lot enjoyed by its owner which should not be affected by the <br />prior state.’ of ownership of an adjoining parcel, except where <br />health policy considerations perniit the result as in Oedering. <br />The Orono zoning ordinance provision relating to variances <br />(Section 32.340) seems to recognize the right of a present owner <br />to have his property right protected regardless of the chain of <br />t^tle of his and adjoining laiidswhen it provides in aubparagrapb <br />(c) as follows: <br />(c) the granting of the application is necessary <br />for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant." <br />The applicant Rhode had a substantial p:-^perty right <br />which should be protected even though his immediate predecessor <br />in title may not have had a property right entitling him to <br />protection because he might conceivably have combined the Rhode <br />lot and the Becker lot to meet the size and width requirements <br />of the zoning ordinance. <br />•I <br />The stature authorizing variances, K.S. §462.57 (6) <br />does not limit the granting of variances because an applicant* s <br />predecessor in title could have avodided the hardship. <br />The Beckers second objection to the granting of the area <br />and width variances is the existence of the two beach casements <br />over the Rhode property. Having caused these casements to be <br />created and having easements on their own property necessary to <br />enable the cnjoymeiic oi these beach easements, the Beckers arc <br />-9- <br />Vl <br />\ <br />S'"iaaiiiil
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.