Laserfiche WebLink
out that the variance ordinance permitted a variance for hardship <br />only if the hardship "has not been created by any persons presently <br />having an interest in the parcel of land." The court approved the <br />variance because "to take away from this lot the right to a vari- <br />ance by the adoption of this ordinance would be, as the trial court <br />found, a violation of due process in that it would deprive the <br />property of any vnlue." <br />By this last expression the coin:t seems to have been <br />considering the lot alone as being a unit which could not be taken <br />from the owner without rendering; it valueless. This is an attribute <br />of a lot enjoyed by its owner which should not be affected by the <br />prior statez of ownership of an adInining; parcel, except whe-:e <br />health policy considerations permit the result as in Dedering. <br />The Orono zoning ordinance provision relating; tee variances <br />(Section 32.340) seems to recognize the right of a present owner <br />to have his property right protected regardless of the chain of <br />title of his and adjoining laddswhen it provides in subparagraph <br />(c) as follows: <br />" (e) thc. granting of the application is necessary <br />for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant." <br />