Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1025 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit" in 1975 when the current zoning code was adopted. 6. This lot is similar to many others in the neighborhood. y 7. The affected neighbor does not object to the average setback a encroachment. 8. The lot has steadily increased in value over the years. 9. This will not be precedent -setting because few small vacant lots in the LR-lB district have been assessed for a full sewer unit. 10. Denial of variances to build will constitute a "taking". 11. The City has approved similar variances for even smaller lots in the LR-lC half acre zoning district, in contemporary tintes. 12. Applicants health problems limit their capability to maintain their existing residence. Staff recommends denial of the variances for the following reasons: 1. The property was initially zoned for single family residential use under the Township of Orono Toning Ordinance adopted November 20, 1950, requiring 75' minimum frontage and 15,000 s.f. area for a building lot. Minimum building lot size throughout the City was established at 140' width, 1.0 acre area per City Ordinance #22 adopted 10/12/59. The property was zoned R-IC, 1 acre/140' width in the 1967 zoning code, and LR-lB 1 acre/140' width in the currently effective 1975 zoning code. Clearly, at the time Henrich bought the property in August 1953, he would have needed a variance to rebuild on the property, and would have needed a variance at any time since his purchase. The statement that he would never have torn the house down if he had kncwn he could not rebuild may be true, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever attempted to determine his rights in 1975. The fact is, Henrich was assessed a sewer unit for a piece of property that contained a substantial structure at the time the sewer was assessed, which structure Henrich elected to remove wil-h no apparent intent to establish a future right to rebuild. 2. Applicants attorney's unjustified position that applicant was denied the opportunity to be granted a "Non -Conforming Conditional Use Permit" upon adoption of the 1975 zoning code, is based on his misinterpretation of the zoning code. Sections 10.03, Subdivision 5 (A through J) and Section 10.09, Subdivision 10 apply only to non- confcrming uses, not to non -conforming structures. Henrich's sinqle family use of the property prior to razing of the house was a conforming use in a single family zone, hence was never considered ;Is being subject to the non -conforming use sections noted, and the property was never eligible for a "Non-Conforminq Use Conditional Use Permit". 3. Assessment for and payment of sewer assessments has not been a sole determining factor in the City's Fast denial or approval of lot buildability in cases where sewer had been assessed and installed. 4. Although the applicant has maintained the lot as a separate tax parcel during his entire ownership, since 1975 he has maintained the