Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 7 <br />«874 DUANE BARTH & MRS. JOHNSTONE <br />1. The proposal can meet all hardcover require­ <br />ments of the LR-IC Zoning District. <br />2. Al] setback requirements for the new lot can be <br />met. <br />3. From the tax record it appears that the lot has <br />been valued and assessed as a separate lot, not <br />incrementally as part of the adjacent property. <br />4. The applicant has owned the property since <br />before the current zoning went into effect. <br />5. The property has been assessed for sewer. <br />6. The lot area is consistent with many other <br />properties in the neighborhood and is equivalent to <br />or larger than 11 of 25 lots in the neighborhood. <br />Conditions for granting approval; <br />1. Granting a variance to the setbacks for the <br />existing house. <br />2. No other performance standard setbacks allowed <br />for either lot i.e. both must meet all hardcover <br />and setback requirements. <br />3. $225 plant charge to be paid with building <br />poermit along with standard SAC charges, etc. <br />4. Removal of existing garage on Lot 21. <br />5. the applicant to bear tlie expense of bringing <br />sewer to the property if no stub exists. <br />Adams stated he is in oposition of this motion <br />because we would be creating a substandard side <br />yard setback on Lot 22 by allowing Lot 21 to built <br />on. The fact the Lot 21 has a garage on it and Lot <br />22 has a house on it suggests that for many years <br />the owner of this property has used it as one lot. <br />Mad they had both the house and garage on one lot <br />that would indicate the intention of selling the <br />adjoining lot at a later time. But I see this <br />property as one that has been used as a single <br />piece of property for all intents and purposes and <br />for that reason I am oppossed to this motion. <br />S