Laserfiche WebLink
TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Adminisirator <br />FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE:May 27, 1993 <br />SUBJECT: Sevver/Water As.sessment, 3237 Casco Circle <br />Introduction <br />Because some Council Members indicated they might place significant weight on whether <br />the subject lot had been assessed sewer and water units, I have reviewed the assessment history <br />of the property and the adjacent property. A distinction must be made between the sewer being <br />"available” and whether or not the property has been as.sessed land on what bads it was <br />assessed). <br />Summary <br />Assessment records were searched for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19. At the time of both the <br />sewer and water assessments. Lots 16, 17 and 18 were held as three separate tax parcels in <br />common ownership. The house addressed as 3241 Casco Circle was mostly on Lot 17, partially <br />on Lot 16. <br />Lot 18 was assessed for front footage for both sewer and water, but was assessed for <br />neither r» water unit nor a sewer plant charge. No water stub was provided to Lot 18. The <br />sewer stub existing on Lot 18 and serving the house on Lot 17, was designed and installed to <br />serve the house on Lot 17. <br />Hie record suggests that Lot 18 was not considered as separately buildable by the City <br />at the time sewer and water was installed and assessed. The 1 acre zoning standard in effect in <br />1965 (changed to 1/2 acre in 1967) and the code standard that allowed Council to grant variances <br />for substandard lots in single separate ownership but by omission suggested that such lots in <br />common ownership could not be granted variances, likely combined to suggest that Lot 18 would <br />not be separately buildable. <br />Council is cautioned that whetlier or not a sewer unit w'as provided based on someone ’s <br />interpretation of codes in 1965 or 1971 should not be the sole criteria for determinim, whether <br />a hardship exists for the current application. No variance/hardship review was done to make <br />those assessment determinations. <br />**‘»"**“^*-' ■TMiill ......... Iin iiiinnfrBnni ■TfciUlli