Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />BRIEF SUMMARY OF LORGE CASE, 2695/2697 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />(LOTS 3 AND 4, AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 265) <br />Two 60 ’ wide lots on Casco Point Road were owned in common but had not been combined for <br />tax purposes. A house existed on Lot 4, Lot 3 was vacant. The property owner sold Lot 4 to <br />Mr. and Mrs. Kane, but kept Lot 3. He evenmally sold Lot 3 to Mr. and Mrs. Lorge. <br />Lot 3 contained steeply sloping land which drained on to Lot 4. When Lorge attempted to <br />obtain a building permit for Lot 3, il.e owners of Lot 4 objected. Although the Planmng <br />Commission recommended approval of variances necessary to make Lot 3 buildable, the City <br />Council determined it should be unbuildable based on the drainage issue as well as for other <br />reasons including the fact that the lots had previously been used as a single property. <br />The owners of Lot 3 sued the City in order to compel the City to grant a building permit. There <br />are many nuances of this case such as the issue of due process and how the City Council took <br />certain actions to deny buildability of the property. Ultimately, before the case went to trial, <br />the City and the owners of Lot 3 settled, and the case was dismissed. The settlement grants <br />width and area variances to render Lot 3 buildable. but allows no other performance standard <br />variances. Further, it stipulates that the owner of Lot 3 must deal adequately with the drainage <br />issues. <br />The main reason City staff considers this case significant is that prior to it, the City refused to <br />accept applications for variances on substandard vacant separate tax parcels owned in common <br />with an adjacent homestead parcel. Since this case was settled, the City has allowed variance <br />applications to be filed on such lots in order to preserve the property owners’ due process. <br />However, the specific facts of the Lorge variance request are unique as compared to every other <br />variance request, and the only conclusion the City has drawn from the case is in regards to <br />preservation of due process.