Laserfiche WebLink
!':!!IC' <br />City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />3) '.Tact E, the devcloped lot is also deficient in regards <br />to lot area r oquJi rcif.ents as follows: <br />Tract.- F.'s area :r:cclusive of road easement per Section <br />31.204 is 1.4 acres - short 26,136 sf or 30% <br />4) C & D, R.L.S. 96 and combined Tract E & F, <br />i:.L.S. 96 have bec:n owned in co::Ton by Anderson from May 23, <br />19-56 to the <br />;) Tracts C, n, L, ana r ;;,ere o-wnel1 in common by Sam Houston <br />!Iuff-inn and ".orenec .ti_oaret Huffman since October i4, <br />1932 at the time. of the _•eplat:ting of Lot 4 and 4A Auditor's <br />.r.::.b ivis ion 336. <br />6) Vacant Tracts C a;-ti t. are used as la.:n area ar.a additional <br />lake, ac_ess for the existin j residence on co'.lbined Tracts <br />E F . '•-0*ii_:i 0is use and with the lots in conron ownership, <br />the _`our lots c: mLined meet all the District zoning requirements. <br />7) % ne-.a home on fracz C .,onld re.;uire an add-itional curb cut <br />:�n o section of Shoreline Drive that is heavily traf`_icked <br />arcs already has an excessive nu_-nber of accesses serving <br />sting hn-usts. <br />3} 9ath Tr:sc�s C a!i.' E hay:41 been zoned for a miniml:r,: lot <br />size of 2 a•zr.es : i r ;e Ordinance No. 172 in 1974 at which <br />time: the two lots :. ire heirl in co.unon ownership by Alden <br />�. 7�rv'e-rson an Helen I•:. Anderson and which lots combined <br />met the requirements of this zoning density. <br />9) D,:^nial of `h:• subject variances would not constitutf- a taking <br />c_` _'roperry or 1 ors of substc,ntial value because Tract C has <br />always had value and been used as required area and yard <br />. ace_ for the r_sidence on Tract E. <br />10) Sect..ic:n 31.203 of the zonlna coc:e provides for d;.:veloprzsent <br />f lacs of record of greater than onu acre held in separate <br />�.;wnersh p since prier to the of fe: ti re date of the zoni r.g <br />rcqulations. Tracts C and 1) do not conforn to this section <br />because they were in co7,.i n ;wnership with Tracts E and, E' <br />s ir.cc 1974 to the present. <br />].1) 'rhe City Council has always required that when two or more <br />lots are own,A in common, each lot must individually meet <br />oi' exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any <br />of the lots can he buil' upon and that two, or more substandard <br />lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting <br />combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Coale before <br />the lots c ari be guilt upa11. <br />