Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas J 3arrett. Esq. <br />April' . <br />Pa^e three <br />force me to re-sundivide m or^cr .0 ^orr • . According to the Zoning <br />within 100% of the ‘7 „rmoori^ Lot 3 is a "Lot of Record", within an ^ <br />Ordinance. thi.s action is 80% of the current area requirement. Lot 3. <br />"R" District, serviceu o\ a sanitary sc '?5% of the current area <br />in fact meei.s the current ‘ ,u^ grandfather provision, sec. <br />lar^guWe of this provision^f I ^ <br />would allow me to do it. Thcrelore. * reauirements for new subdivisions, is clearly <br />a previously subdivided ^ - j rc-subdivision demand even <br />“ t “cH I ;m seeing a permit already is within <br />I OO't^o of the current reuuncmeins. <br />• • ■ - rpfniir-ment that I re*subdivide leads me to believe that they ^ not <br />The planning commissionrequir.me of Record" but as one unplatted parcel. They ^ <br />view Lots 1, 3.4 and Outlot 1 as separate Lots R ^ <br />have memioned the phrase nowhere in the Zoning Ordinanee or the <br />“A dass I Subdivision shall he exempt from plattmg by the C.t> . <br />and shall be peimittcd subdivision by metes and bounds 00^^^ <br />torSescrihed by a Registered Land Surveyor >1 .t meets <br />one or more of the following criteria: ....The subdivision is a <br />division of property previously combined lor tax purposes. <br />A careful reading of this provisiom in context. *‘‘‘ <br />* .. . f _ <br />I believe the City Administration viewa must <br />would require subdivision for further butldtng. Assessors office. <br />L.