10-20-1980 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o 1' 2?;.V m MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1980 - PAGE 3 Lorge again reviewed his position and added the following comments: 1. If he were aware of the common ownership ordinance in 1975, he could have placed ownership in the name of another relative. RICHARD LORGE 2697 Casco VARIANCE (#581) Cont 2. The exclusion of common owr' !:i?hip lots from the code and the setting of different istandards for single separate lots is discriminating. 3. The code has no statutory protection for preventing this kind of condition. Mr. Lorge continued with a review of his plan of action or priorities. He would prefer to offer the lot at a lower price to the abutting property owners. If Council deems the lot unbuildable, he loses all bargaining power. If Council approves Lot 3 as buildable, he would still prefer selling to the abutting property owners. Bob Hunt said that the subject property has been in common ownership since 1942. Both lots have been maintained as one yard. Yard light and switch are located on Lot 3. Driveway, trees, in fact all improvements suggest use as one yard. A1 Kane, future owner of Lot 4, had the following comments: 1. Drainage problem exists and he worries about his investment if additional hardcover is added to overburden drainage basin. 2. Bought Lot 4 assuming Lot 3 was not buildable. 3. Questions area quoted in recent surveys. 4. He would never agree to a shared driveway situation with Lot 3. Frahm moved to recommend approval of Richard Lorge's lot width variance of 40' or 40%, lot area variance of 10% and common ownership variance based on the following findings: 1. Lot is 90% of required area. 2. Lots on both sides are occupied. 3. If Lot 3 were built or- it would be typical of neighborhood development. 4. When purchased, applicant was informed Lot 3 was a separate lot - price was based on that fact. . .TT * t “ If. • .'i