Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrati . <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />DATE:May 27. 1993 <br />SUBJECT: Sewer/Water Assessment, 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 prcpeny and the adjacent property. A distinction must be made between the sewer being <br />•’available" and whether or not the property has been assessed (and on what basis 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 IS was assessed for front footage for both .sewer and water, but was assessed for <br />neither a 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 hou.se on Lot 17, was designed and installed to <br />serve the house on Lot 17. <br />'Fhe 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 whether or not a sewer unit was provided based on someone ’s <br />interpretation of codes in 1965 or 1971 should not be the sole criteria for determining whether <br />a hardship exists for the current application. No variance/hardship review was done to make <br />tho.se assessment determinations.