02-18-1986 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

KINUTHS OF THF OKONO riJ\KNlNG CUKK1SS30N Mi:i%T3NC HKI.I) APIU1. ib,] 98 5 PAGF 4 #903 WARD FERRELL Rovcgno noted that for 20 years it has been taxed as a separate buildable site and for the past 3 years it has not been taxed as a buildable site. Ward Ferrell stated that he has kept the property all these years thinking he could build on each parcel and he noted he would like to build his retirement home on one of the parcels. Ferrell noted he has owned the property since 1950 and is entitled to build. Planning Commission agreed with staff's interpretation of the zoning code that the property needs a variance. Chairman Callahan suggested that the Planning Commission be polled as to their feeling on the application if it w’ere an actual variance request. Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot, thereby only allowing two lots [the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot (7 & 8 combined)]. Mary Ferrell stated that the cede is not consistent and is contradictory in that the zoning has changed along with the code over the years. Sime felt that there is very little doubt that staff interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees with the basic premise is another point. Sime felt that there are a bundle of rights that go with the land and should not be taken away from people by changing the rules or zoning while they still own the land. Sime stated that the common ownership issue seems to alter the rules for people. Most of the Planning Commission felt they could only approved two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot] conditioned upon Lots 7 and 8 being combined. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Rovcgno moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff's interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do need variances. Mv,tion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Roveqno felt that a less intense use of the property would be more reasonable by combining Lot 7 and 8 and that way the applicants would only need a lot area variance and not a lot width variance. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application was brought in under a request to confirm the interpretation of the zoning code in order to save the applicants money. Mabusth noted that a completed application would require payment for area variances for each proposed and existing building site in addition to septic testing for each undeveloped site and an alternate test site for existing 4