09-17-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Lots of Record Amendment September 12,2012 � Page 4 � � meet the lakeshore, street& side setbacks, and meet the current hardcover and lot coverage � requirements -yet still needs a width variance per Orono code because it doesn't meet the 80% width standard. But if that same lot has a commonly owned twin next to it, each of the two at 50 feet in width and 10,000 s.f. in area meets 66%of the 75'/15,000 s.f. DNR�width and area standards and can be developed without any variances. The inequity is obvious -the 80' width standard only affects the individual lot situation. � Example 2: For existing off-lake contiguous lots, Maple Place illustrates where our 80%rule no longer comes into play. Each Maple Place lot is only 9,000 s.f(41% of 1/2 acre) and 50' wide (50% of 100')but meets the DNR minimum standard of 6,600 s.f. (66% of 10,000 s.f.) and 49.5' (66% of 75'). The Maple Place lots are being developed with modest homes and site plans that meet all zoning requirements of the 1/2-acre zone. Interestingly, because they are buildable without variance only because of the statute,they are subject to the 25%hardcover limit, even though they would be in Tier 2 (30%hardcover)under the new hardcover ordinance. Example 3: A properly that is a single lot of record in Tier 2 (making it an off-lake lot) doesn't � ha�e a minimum area requirement per statute,but it must meet City width requirements in order to satisfy the statute requirements. If it needs a width variance,then it doesn't satisfy all the statute requirements. It can be argued that if the owner wants to be able to use his Tier 2 hardcover allotment of 30%,then he can't invoke the statute and must go through the variance process for lot area or width as needed. In this case,having an 80%rule for existing lots of record would work in the property owner's favor-with the 80% City rule in place, a lot meeting 80% of City's area and/or width standards could make use of the Tier 2 hardcover allotment of 30%without invoking the statute or needing a variance. If the 80%rule was not in place,then the magnitude of variance needed is greater. This is the one situation where merely eliminating the 80%rule forces the need for a variance in the shoreland. A solution would be to establish code language that states"in shoreland areas, a lot meeting the statute requirements for buildability does not need a width variance as long as all setbacks and other zoning district standards are met". Su��ested Code Amendment Our goal would be to eliminate the need for a lot area or width variance in the 1/2-acre and 1- acre Shoreland sewered zones for existing nonconforming lots of record when a11 other zoning standards (hardcover, lot coverage, setbacks, building height, etc.) are met. Staff suggests there is no longer a substantial basis to retain the code section requiring lot area or width variances in the 1/2-acre and 1-acre zones for shoreland lots that don't meet 80% of the '-''�� zoning district requirement. A variance application would still be required for other zoning district standards if not met(setbacks, lot coverage by structures,hardcover, etc.). Staff recommends that the 80% standard for lots of record in the sewered Shoreland and non- shoreland 1/2-acre and 1-acre zones be eliminated,with buildability remaining subject to meeting all other zoning district requirements. Proposed language revisions to Section � 78-72(b)(1) are as follows: