06-15-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ala* P, Olson Page 2 November -S, 1983 been conveyed to him by Mr. Ahern. Since you have quoted from some sort of "record" of the hearing, I would specifically request access to the record of this hearing to confirm what statements were or were not made by Mr. Ahern, City officials, and others. As to your reference to Ms. Frommes, she informs me that she was making an inquiry for a potential b*jyer as to whether the cabin on Lot 64 could be remodeled or other building could be done on the parcels. V7hile she had been in contact with Mr. Ahern and may have made reference to him in connection with the properties, the fact is that as of that date Mr. Ahern was not in title to the property. Third, contrary to your statement. Section 34.366 of the Ordinance clearly does prohibit the division and sale of record lots without City Council approval. In pertinent part, it provides: "All record lots...shall be continued in common ownership and shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area, leased or otherwise separated without application for and City Council approval...." Section 34.366 of the Ordinance defines record lot for this purpose as "•'.11 the contiguous and abutting land owned in common by the same person or persons as of November 9, 1981...." Please advise if it is the City's position that, despite these provisions, the individual owners of the six parcels each may sell or transfer ownership of their parcels separately. Mr. Ahern was never barred from conveying these parcels to other persons prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 246. Your previous moratorium Ordinances Nos. 238 and 241 barred the granting of "building permits, land subdivision approvals, rezoning approvals, conditional use or special use permits, variances or other authority for additional development." These ordinances did not restrict Mr. Ahern's sale of the individual parcels. Yet, even though these parcels were under separate ownership prior to the passage of Ordinance No, 246, brono continues to treat these properties as though they are under common ownership. The fact is that as separately owned parcels, four of the six lots, each approximately 1/2 acre, should have been treated as separate parcels and classified as suitable for the building of seasonal dwellings. The Ordinance at pages 17-18 so classifies at least 18 similar individually-owned parcels. Whatever the