Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1800 <br />March 15, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />Note that applicant chose to combine the driveway outlot w ith Lot 2, so that he <br />could sell the existing house on the easterly portion of Lot 3, yet maintain full <br />control of the outlot for fumre use as access to the westerly portion of Lot 3 if <br />it is subdivided off of enlarged Lot 2 some day. <br />Question #1: Docs the transition from Sketch D-2 to Sketch D-3 constitute creation of a <br />new back lot per Ordinance No. 122, Subdivision 27? Or is it merely reshaping an <br />existing back lot? <br />If the easterly portion of Lot 3 is considered a new back lot, then it must meet <br />the 150% acreage requirement, or 7.5 acres. <br />Question #2: With Lot 3 being divided and its west half being combined with Lot 2, is the <br />"shared driveway" approval of Resolution No. 2267 still applicable? <br />Question #3; D-5 shows a possible future split of enlarged Lot 2 to create an 8.2 acre <br />second back lot. Inherent in this layout is the need for a lot width variance. Is this <br />shared driveway outlot what Planning Commission intended to allow in Subdivision <br />27 (C-4) (Page 2 of Ordinance No. 122)? That section says "no more than two <br />residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot." <br />Sketch D-6 is applicant’s alternative proposal incorporating a future outlot roasl <br />rather than the narrow driveway corridor. (For clarity, the parcels have now <br />ucen labeled X, Y and Z). <br />Question #4: Although new Lot Y would still require a width variance, neither Y nor Z <br />would be considered back lots because now they front on a private road. Does that <br />road have to be built to eliminate the back lot status of Y and Z? Or is merely a <br />shared driveway for Y and Z within the platted road, still acceptable? And, Is there <br />any need to build a road to serve just two lots, Y and Z, if X will still access <br />Watertown Road directly? I.e., does any of this impact the 1988 approval for a <br />shared driveway to serve the two lots in the south half of this property? <br />Applicant ’s Perspective <br />The applicant in the past has indicated he would prefer not to relocate the old hour’s <br />Watertown Road driveway eastward to the outlot due to distance and topographical <br />considerations. It can be assumed he would also prefer to construct a shared driveway rather <br />than a .oad within a platted road outlot, to serve just the two southerly lots. <br />1