Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM; <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Planning Commission <br />Joann© A. Mabvisth, Zoning Administratoir <br />July 14, 1983 <br />#761 Lougias H. Smith, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance - <br />Lot Area & Lot Width <br />Zoning District - <br />Application - a) <br />LR-IC <br />Lot Area <br />Required = <br />Required = <br />Existing = <br />Variance = <br />Variance ^ <br />Lot Width <br />Required <br />Required <br />Existing <br />Variance <br />Variance <br />21,780 sf (100% Required) <br />17,424 sf (80% Required) <br />16,748 sf or 77% <br />5,032 sf or 23% (100% required) <br />676 sf or 3.9% (80% required) <br />100' (100% Required) <br />80' (80% Required) <br />55' <br />45' or 45% (100% Required) <br />25' or 31% (80% Required) <br />jrge <br />ance <br />the <br />d on <br />This application was accepted on the basis that the lot of <br />separate record did not meet 80% of the lot standards required <br />for the LR-IC zoning district. In reviewing the site and the <br />existing improvements on Lot 18, one cannot help but notice a <br />previous use/ownership connection between combined Lots 16 and <br />17 to the immediate north. The lot-is still maintained as part <br />of the yard. I reviewed the tax roles bade to 1979 and found <br />that Douglas Smith is the owner of Lot 18. The applicant/owner <br />confirms the sale in 1977. I checleed the tax files on Lots <br />15 and 17 and found the enclosed deed for the sale of all <br />three lots to J. Richard Tuthill in June of 1971. Planning <br />Commission has the following options in review of this <br />application: <br />1) To table pending resolution of common ownership <br />question - I'm sure we'll have an unhappy applicant <br />as he is ready to build. Please note that in his <br />addendum to the application, he openly reveals that <br />Lot 18 was separated from Lots 16 and 17 in 1977. <br />The LR-IC zoning district was created in 1967. The <br />applicant has demonstrated complete openness in his <br />responses to the information sought in the <br />application. Once again review enclosed Ordinances <br />31.201 and 31.202. Our applicant could not <br />understand why he had to apply for a variance <br />because he did not meet the 80% standard. The <br />common ownership question will compound that <br />difficulty even more. Hopefully, I will get the <br />opportunity to explain the common ownership issue <br />prior to the meeting.