Laserfiche WebLink
zoning File $1010 <br />April 7, 1986 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />s.n the Ericson appeals application, Coun(.i 1 advised the applicant that <br />the separation of legally combined lots in the City of Orono requires a <br />subdivision review if the previously divided parcels cannot meet all lot <br />standards of the current zoning district. In addition, Ericson was advised <br />that because of the need for multiple variances such an application would <br />be denied. Mr. Hal- has been advised of the city's position. The appli- <br />cant has reviewed the files of the recent variance application that dealt <br />with the variances granted to lots owned in common and reviewed as single <br />separate lots. One of these applications involved a ;neighboring property. <br />The applicant has filed the application because he feels his specific case <br />is unique requiring special cons—leration. Staff has continued to advise <br />the applicant of the city's .)ngstanding positionon subdivision <br />applications requiring multiple variances, spec`ficly, those seeking area <br />variances. <br />Review of Proposed Division <br />The applicant purchased the subject property in 1979. Lc,t 28 and part <br />of lot 27 are part of the Shadywood plat, created approximately in 1903. <br />(see eyhibit 11) Staff has been able to review the ownership of the <br />property with the Registrar of Titles Office. The earlist record of the <br />property in its present: configuration appears in 1952. The clerk was <br />unable to tell me the date of the division of lot 27 nor of the date of the <br />legal combination. The house was built in 1955. The zoning district at <br />that time was residential but there were no defined lot standards for the <br />district merely approved uses. <br />The property has been assessed l water unit and 1 sewer unit (1 plant <br />charge ind lineal footage charge.) <br />Review if Variances- per revised sketch submitted by applicant after the <br />Planning Commission review. <br />1 - Lot A <br />Lot Area <br />required = 21,780 square feet <br />proposed - 20,850 square feet <br />variance = 930 square feet car 4— <br />Lot Width <br />required = 100' <br />proposed ,- 70.r•' <br />variance = 29.5 or 29.5% <br />2 - Lot B <br />Lot. Area <br />required <br />>roposed <br />variance <br />LL Width <br />required <br />proposed <br />variance <br />= 21,780 square feet <br />= 18,450 square feet <br />= 3,330 square feet or 15.2% <br />100' <br />= 65.5' <br />= 34.5' or 34.5% <br />