Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Miwms OF TUB PLMmiBG COMMISSIOH HBBTIHG MMCH 20, 1989 <br />XOailG FlUt %1320-WtUOh COOBTKT ClOB CORIBDBD <br />problems. His only responsibility is not to exaggerate the <br />existing condition. <br />There were no further comments from the public regarding <br />this matter and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning <br />Commissioner Bellows, to table this matter until the four <br />requirements previously requested by the Planning Commisjion are <br />met. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />«1366 LOU BOTTBRFIBLO <br />3925 WATKKTOW ROAD <br />PRBLmnnRT sobdivisiob <br />RBCOMSIDBRATIoa OF COBDITIOMS OF APPROVAL <br />Mr. Butterfield was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reminded <br />the Planning Commission that they had previously reviewed Mr. <br />Butterfield's application for subdivision. Since that time, Mr. <br />Butterfield has been working with staff on the concerns involved <br />with the easements for wetlands and setbacks. Mr. Butterfield <br />was requesting clarification on the Planning Commissions <br />recommendation that no structures be allowed south of the Luce <br />Line. After the Planning Commission review, staff received <br />verification from the DNR that the easement to cross the Luce <br />Line wee e public eeseinent end not for Mr* Butterfield only* <br />Planning Commissioner Brown recollected that the objective of the <br />Planning Commission was to keep traffic crossing the Luce Line to <br />a minimum. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked where the <br />easement was located in relation to Lot 2. Gaffron showed him <br />that it does not extend to Lot 2. Kelley observed that in the <br />event Mr. Butterfield sold Lot 2, there would be no way to access <br />it. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that an easement would <br />have to be granted from Lot 1 or Outlot B to access Lot 2. <br />Bellows staced that she was opposed to encouraging the crossing <br />of the Luce Line, even though that is currently being done. <br />Mr. Butterfield stated that he did not understand why, if he <br />had 5 acres of land, he could not have an accessory structure. <br />Bellows clarified that the Planning Commission was only <br />recommending no accessory structures south of the Luce Line. <br />Kelley questioned why Mr. Butterfield did not combine all of the <br />Lots on the south side of the Luce Line. Mr. Butterfield <br />explained that he had uses for the othei lots and minimum acreage <br />requirements that he had to meet to retain his agriculture <br />status. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson recollected that he was <br />concerned about the possibility of a residence being built on Lot <br />2 south of the Luce Line. However, he concurred with Mr. <br />Butterfield, in that it seemed ridiculous to disallow him any <br />accessory structures south of the Luce Line.