10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r was proposed to be 74, he attended the still be buildable in documented by the Whether or not it ' Council would be y the City in 1981, Iding permits for a ted for the granting roperty as R-IC, 1 g existing lots of sting upon September Code) under single :ict, which does not :o area or width may i dwelling purpose 1 such use does not ngle separate owner- n two persons. operties nor did it »f record. However, implied that other It did not define in ave been allowed to Dt met the standards reguired a lot area which declared the f Residential, stated ting upon January 1, :ode) under single h does not meet the >a or width may be ng purpose provided does not adversely ing requirements are m One Acre. A lot ty in excess of one nts of this Zoning bilized for single Council finds: M- 4 1) it is at least one acre in slxe, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and 2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and 3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. 22. City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, undeveloped substandard, contiguous lots in common ownership was clearly defined by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to deny on October 26, 1981, based on: a) lack of demonstrated hardship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient width. 23. The 1984 Zoning Code eunendments included the addition of Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 24. At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation similar to Ferrells with a high potential for request of similar variances have been identified within the City of Orono. 25. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-IB zoning district became effective, no permits have been issued for new residences on commonly owned substandard lots in the RR-IB district. Of 153 new residence permits issued in the RR—IB district from 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 145 permits have been issued for conforming lots, 7 permits have been issued for substandard lots of record in single separate ownership due to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire additional land to create conforming lets, and 1 permit was issued to demolish and rebuild on a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house was already existing. The City of Orono has consistently denied permits for substandard lots owned in common with adjacent developed lots in the RR-IB district. Page 7 of 9 ... S . ! m mmrni mm Vl:: m: 26. T1 unsewer exceed be buil must b require 27. Th section of the minimui City wh 28. Ir that tc lots tc enviror be deti also Ic in its distrii safety welfar draina* must pr of dens 29. Th propert of Citj protect 3 0. Tl City w« Zoning 31. : longstj of subt adverse 32. D€ proper always on Parc 33. T intent ^ .7- -