Mac
Gold Member
A zoning question has arisen and I need to poll the forum. An owner of a landlocked lot has asked about non-conforming lots of record:
§ 174-41. Nonconforming lots of record.
A permitted building or use may be constructed or located on any lot of record as of the effective date of this chapter or applicable amendment, in any district, even if said lot does not meet the minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width requirements for said use in the district in which it is located, provided that the following conditions exist or are met:
A. The owner of said lot owns no adjoining unimproved land which would create a conforming lot if combined with the lot which is deficient in area, width, or depth.
B. Any building or use located on a nonconforming lot shall have front, side and rear yards conforming to the minimums required for the district in which said lot is located.
From the definitions;
YARD, FRONT -- A space extending the full width of the lot between any building and the front lot line, and measured perpendicular to the building at the closest point to the front lot line. Such front yard is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward as may be permitted elsewhere in this chapter.
LOT LINE, FRONT -- The lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way.
The dilemma: For exception "B" to apply, the lot needs to have a front yard "conforming to the minimums". The definition of front yard refers to the front lot line. The lot has no frontage on a street, ergo no front line at the street right-of-way.
Access to this particular lot is by easements or rights of way granted by previous owners of adjacent properties.
My question: Is the lot buildable? A strict interpretation indicates no, because the front yard has no frontage on a street right-of-way. A more generous interp could be that the law meant to allow for non-conforming lots to be built upon, but the wording and definitions are an unintended glitch and construction should be approved.
§ 174-41. Nonconforming lots of record.
A permitted building or use may be constructed or located on any lot of record as of the effective date of this chapter or applicable amendment, in any district, even if said lot does not meet the minimum lot area, lot depth, and lot width requirements for said use in the district in which it is located, provided that the following conditions exist or are met:
A. The owner of said lot owns no adjoining unimproved land which would create a conforming lot if combined with the lot which is deficient in area, width, or depth.
B. Any building or use located on a nonconforming lot shall have front, side and rear yards conforming to the minimums required for the district in which said lot is located.
From the definitions;
YARD, FRONT -- A space extending the full width of the lot between any building and the front lot line, and measured perpendicular to the building at the closest point to the front lot line. Such front yard is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward as may be permitted elsewhere in this chapter.
LOT LINE, FRONT -- The lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way.
The dilemma: For exception "B" to apply, the lot needs to have a front yard "conforming to the minimums". The definition of front yard refers to the front lot line. The lot has no frontage on a street, ergo no front line at the street right-of-way.
Access to this particular lot is by easements or rights of way granted by previous owners of adjacent properties.
My question: Is the lot buildable? A strict interpretation indicates no, because the front yard has no frontage on a street right-of-way. A more generous interp could be that the law meant to allow for non-conforming lots to be built upon, but the wording and definitions are an unintended glitch and construction should be approved.
