Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988

Home Browse Search

B. The applicant razed the house on the property in 1975. Although applicant s, ates that he would never have torn the house down if he had known that he could not rebuild, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever attempted to determine his property rights at that time, nor did he make any apparent attempt to establish a future right to rebuild. 9. The applicant's attorney has taken the position that the applicant was denied the opportunity to be granted a "Non -Conforming Conditional Use Permit" upon adoption of the 1975 Zoning Code. This position is unjustified because it is a misinterpretation of Zoning Code Section 10.03, Su'udivision 5 (A-J) and Section 10.09, Subdivi-ion 10, which apply only to non -conforming uses, not to non -conforming structures. The applicant's single family residential use of the property prior to razing of the house was a conforming use in a singl'l, family residential zone, hence was never considered as being subject to the non -conforming use sections noted, and the property was never eligible for a "Non -Conforming Use Conditional Use Permit". 10. Assessment for and payment of sewer assessments has not been a sole determining factor in the City's past denial or approval of lot buildability• in cases where sewer had been assessed and installed. 11. Although the applicant has maintained the lot as a separate tax parcel during his entire ownership, since 1975 he has maintained the lot as yard area adjacent to his existing residence at 4125 Highw.00d Road. To any casual observer, the lot appears as a integral yard area and nct as a separate lot. Denial of variances to build a new residence on the property would not deny applicant reasonable use of his property, because he has the use of that property as yard area. 12. The tax history of the lot suggests that it has been assessed at a value reflecting its use merely as yard area, and not as a buildable lakeshore lot. 13. The property is smaller than any other developed property in the Highwood neighborhood, and is smaller than 634 of the 657 developed lots (1984 data) in the LR-IB zoning distrirt. 14. The City of Orono has denied buildability for two lots of 0.25 acres and 0.22 acres respectively in the LR-lB zoning district in contemporary times; the smallest. LR-lB lot granted variances in contemporary times was 0.23 acres in area in 1983, and was not a lakeshore lot, hence it was not subject to the more restrictive 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover limitations. That lot was approximately 20% larger than the applicant's lot. Page 3 of 6