Laserfiche WebLink
� � <br /> � . <br /> Page 21 <br /> � 8 . Tract E and Parcel 810 were under common ownership <br /> � as of 1967, 1969, and as of January 1, 1975, both lots are <br /> recorded as being under the common ownership of 4v'arren <br /> � Ortenblad. <br /> � 9 . Tract E and Parcel 810 together consist of approx- <br /> imately one-half acre of dry buildable land. <br /> � <br /> � 10. As of 1967 and until January l, 1975, Section 31 . 200 <br /> of the Zoning Coae provided as follows: <br /> • <br /> "Existinc�lots. A lot of record existing upon September <br /> � 14, 1967 ( the effective date of the Zoning Code) under <br /> single separate ownership in an "R" Residential District, <br /> � which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code <br /> � as to area or width may be utilized for a single family <br /> detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment <br /> � of the council such use does not adversely affect the <br /> public health or safety. Single separate ownerships � � <br /> � include joint ownerships by not more than two persons . " <br /> � 11. Therefore, as of 1969, when Plarren Ortenblad sold <br /> S Parcel 810, both Parcel 810 and Tract E were under common <br /> ownership and were not under single separate ownership and <br /> � since both lots were substandard taken individually, both <br /> lots were unbuildable pursuant to the Zoning Code. If Warren <br /> � Ortenblad had retained ownership of Parcel 810, then Parcel <br /> 810 and Tract E together would meet the requirements of the <br /> w then existing Zoning Code. <br /> ! 12. On January 1, 1975, the Zoning Code of the City <br /> � or Orono was amended and language similar to Section 31 , 200 <br /> above was included therein, which language applied only to <br /> r existing lots which, because of that zoning change, placed <br /> in new use districts with new lot area and width requirements. <br /> • Tract E and Parcel 810 were not so changed and therefore were <br /> subject to the lot of record and single separate ownership <br /> � restriction as set forth above in Section 31. 200. <br /> � ' <br /> 13. The applicant has failed to show any unique hard- <br /> � ship to justify any variance from the provisions of the Zoning <br /> Code. There are other substandard lots throughout the city <br /> � which have been combined in the past pursuant to Section 31. 200 <br /> or language similar thereto. <br /> � <br /> � 14 . The variance is denied in order to prevent the <br /> creation of the public harm of congested streets, lack of <br /> � adequate parking, and lack of open space in the area which <br /> would result if these substandard lots were developed as two <br /> � separate lots in violation of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br />