10-29-1984 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINU'PES OF 'PHE RFGULAR ORONO COUNCIG MEE'PING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984 . PAGE 9 Desyl Peterson stated that courts have basically said #820 LONIE FISK thatyouare supposed to grant variances to substandard lots where to do ott�erwise would prohibit any value to the property. Peterson stated this is generally true . Peterson stated that this does not apply here because t�zis is tax forfeit property. Peterson stated the original owner gave up that right and the original investment is gone . Peterson stated tha�.this is a n�w anplicant who bougilt the oroperty as t�x forfeiL- and assu:r�s tl�e risk that this pronerty is substandard and cannot be built on. �eterson stated that it is irrelevant whaz the staff told him. Peterson stated that this variance is different from all the other variances because it is tax forfeit. Desyl Peterson stated it apnears that this property was in common ownership with the adjacent property. Peterson stated t'nat the Mv Supreme Court has held that when two lots are in common ownership, at any point after t'ne adoption of the zoning ordinance, i�hen tnose two lots have to 'pe combined to make one loc thai. is closer if not exceeding tne zoning standards . �esyl Peterson stated i�hat ti�e Orono zoning code used Lo say if there was a non-conforming structure and it was destroyed, then it could not be rebuilt if not more than the 50 percent of the assessed market value. 7oning Administrator Mabusth stated that we are not dealing with a non-conforming use or structure in this case, t'�e code referred to by Peterson is not anplicable. Peterson sLat�d no, that a non-conforrning use not only ap�lies to the use itself but also to setbacks . Peterson stated t'nat the tax forfeit is important in this case, Garth Coller, Fisk ' s attorney, addressed Ron Batty ' s remarks, Coller stated burden of proof has been met in this instance as to why the lot conforms . Coller stated it is not against the health, safety, and welfare, but helns the nealth, safety, and welfare. Coller stated the burden of proof, and it is a balancing test that the courts give, if there is no adverse effect to the health, safety and welfare and there is some benefit to the health, safety, and welfare and the option is to deny the use of residential property for any use at all, that yes the burden oF proof shifts over . Coller stated the burden of proof is on the neighbors, staff, and Council to come up with a negative declaration that imposes a greater degree of hardship to tne health, safety and welfare than it would benefit it.