Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />m <br />o <br />m <br />m <br />« <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 2 <br />Tom Lowe asked the applicant if he signed the <br />driveway easement serving the Hannah lot. Hepp <br />stated that he did not know, but that he would <br />check his records and report back to the Commission <br />if they required this type of information. Lowe <br />restated his concern that if Mr. Hepp required <br />any variances that the hardships be stated for the <br />record. <br />BRUCE HEPP <br />2605 West Lafayette Rd. <br />SUBDIVISION <br />(#545) Cont. / <br />Hammerel moved to table the application pending <br />staff resolving question of lagoon area being <br />credited as shoreline. Applicant will submit <br />new plan once determination is made. Motion <br />seconded by Jabbour. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). <br />Motion passed unanimously. <br />“i ■ <br />The following persons were present: Richard <br />Lorge, Mary Butler, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt, <br />and Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Kane, future owners of <br />residence on Lot 4. <br />RICHARD LORGE <br />2697 Casco Point Rd. <br />VARIANCE <br />(#581) <br />Mabusth reviewed points raised at staff meeting <br />with Bruce Malkerson concerning the question of <br />common ownership. Commission is advised that <br />the standards set forth in Section 31.202 of <br />the Ordinance only applies to single separate <br />lots. Lots of common ownership are required to <br />meet full compliance with the standards of the <br />code. As to the question of ownership of Lot 4 <br />and how we act on the common ownership question <br />if Mr. Lorge is no longer the owner of subject lot. <br />jEf the lots were in common ownership as of the <br />effective date of this ordinance, the applicant <br />is still legally responsible. Mabusth restated <br />again for the record that late last winter, she <br />advised the realtor for the property that a land <br />use application would be necessary because of the <br />common ownership question. <br />M * <br />Planning Commission reviewed the four previous <br />applications that staff was to report on for this <br />meeting. Two were subdivision applications on <br />Casco Point involving substandard lot widths. One, <br />an R.L.S. on Casco Circle was approved prior to <br />formal subdivision review procedures and the other <br />(Joe Braun), reviewed in 1978, was denied on the <br />basis of substandard lot width. The remaining <br />applications involved area and lot width variances. <br />One involved approval based on substandzird lots <br />being combined, the other (Watson) was approved on <br />the basis that lot was not physically maintained as <br />one and that lot was bought some ten years after <br />applicant purchased their homestead lot.