Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1983 SUPPLEMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF 0i'('+ 10. Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning code requirements: The only thing truly unusual about the parcel in question, Lot 18, Spring Park, is that it remains unimproved. Lot 18 is 300 feet long by 54.36 feet wide. In area, the lot appears to be larger than the majority of lots to the north and south contained in Taylor's Subdivision of Spring Park, and the Spring Park Subdivision. Tn width, Lot 18 is consistent with many, if not most, of the lots in those two subdivisions, and appears to be wider than some. Your applicant knows of no lots in those two contiguous subdivisions, however, which remains unimprovmed. Although some of the lots in those subdivisions, such as Lot 16 and 17 of Spring Park, have been combined to form lots which conform with the current zoning in terms of width and zoning, many other lots, such as Lot 19 to the immediate south of Lot 18, are of similar dimensions and have been improved. Since the properties to the immediate north and south are both improved, and held by others, compliance with the zoning code is not possible by combining the lot with the other lots, and, although Lot 18 was severed in 1977 from Lots 16 and 17, those lots comprised a conforming lot which .does not require Lot 18 in order to meet the area and width re,,iirements of the Orono zoning ordinance. Since the lot is bor(,--red by Central Avenue and the lake, no expansion of the lot is possible in those directions to achieve compliance with the area requirements of the zoning code. 11. Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations. In this case, strict enforcement of zoning regulations prevents the landowner from putting this land to any beneficial use whatsoever without the requested variances. Lot 18 is plainly suited only for the construction of a single family residential home, and has no reasonable use other than that. As shown on the survey submitted with this variance application, an ample single family home can be constructed on the lot without violating the zoning district setback requirements. Municipal sewer and water is readily available, and indeed, the property has been assessed for those improvements. In fact, the property has at all times been taxed as an individual buildable lot. For taxes payable in 1983, the property was taxed at a market value of $56,900, up from $49,000 for taxes payable in 1982. Plainly, the only reasonable use for this property is as proposed. A denial of the requested area and width variances, therefore, would prohibit any beneficial use of this lot whatsoever. Moreover, the physical buildability of the lot is emphasized by the similar construction common throughout the neighborhood. Similar houses on similar lots are common throughout the two subdivisions mentioned above, as well as elsewhere along the lakefront. Unlike those property owners, however, this property owner will suffer the undue and unique hardship of owning a