11-19-1984 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Mr. »nd Mrs. Johnstone apparently have owned the two lots for over 40 y.j.irs and have kept tho.n as separate lots Cor tax purposes. Our tax files only go back to 197 4 but show the Johns tones as owners for all years 1974 to 1984. Our files do contain a deed conveyance f rom Mi r iatn Coffee to Donald R. and Ingrid Margareto Johnstone dated 1-26-71. Aec»irding to Mrs. Johnstone there never was a mortgage on t’ne property and she and Mr. Johnstone inherited it from Mr. Johnstones father in 1942 . 4. Kxhibit F shows the existing ilejvelop^d lakeshore lot siz»is Cor the east side of .Shadywood Road fromCouiity Road 91 to the Coffee Bridge. F.xisting lot sizes range from 3.2 2 acres to 1.3U acres. Lot 21 in question is 0.35acrcs. Of 29 properties in this strip, 11 (or 4 4«) are equivalent to or smalli^r than Lot 21. Lot 22 in question, with the house, is 3.4 0 acres. Again, 11 of 2 9 or 4 4% are equivalent or smaller . Also, overall, 17 of 25 ot 68'fcare sma 1 ler than 3.50 acre. There are 4 properties larger than the 3.74 acre of Lots 21 and 22 combined. The average existing density is 3.48 acres/building site (11.89 acres - 25 properties) excluding the two lots in question. Based on the above, a case can bo made <*ither way i.e. a significant percentage of neighboring properties are equivalent or smaller t’nan the proposal; yet the proposal yields 2 lots significantly smaller than the average lot area. 5.v;hat equivalent applications may have set a precedent for tiiis application? The Lorge properties (2695-2697 Casco Point Road) come to mind, with existing lots of about 3.4<3 acres (house) and 3.44 acres (vacant) and leaving a setback of ^ 6' for the existing house. As you are probably aware, this was the subject of a lawsuit wliich was f) nully settled in favor of the applicant, allowing construction on the 3.44 acre lot but w i th no other variances granted. The di f Cerences between the two applications would seem to 1 .e only in the magnitude of the lot area and width variances rc*quested. In the Smiley application, again similar to this, a lot line rear rang*‘inent was required in order to create a s**thack, since the existing house extended into t’ne vacant lot. This also is very similar to the Douglas Smith application in which a commonly owned lot of .43 acres was approved as a separate buildinq site, but with no setback variani'e required for the existing liouse^ I,ot W/'House Variance Vac Lot Variance Lorge 3.48 ac 3.32 ac or 4%3.44 ac 0.36 ac or 12% Johnstone 3.43 ac 3.13 ac or 23%3.35 ac 3.15 ac or 33% Smith 3.71 ac none 3.43 ac 0.07 ac or l’% Smiley (1 acre zone)3.65 ac 3.35 ac ot 35%3.59 ac 3.41 ac or 41% A recommendation for denial of I.ot 21 as a separate building site mignt include the following findinjs;