09-18-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ai Thomaa J. Barrett. adh I i:. I‘>'55 * Page Ihrec In my .imation. -Jie Let which is f fis^^uempting to (Lot n. It IS Lot 3 which IS Lot i and add it to Lot 3. making both Lots force me to re-subdrvide in order .0 * ^ .nhdivisions. .According to the Zoning within 100% of the 1 984 requirements *or .new • • ^ Record", within an Ordinance, tliis action is TefS 80^o of the current area requirement. Lot 3, "R" Distnet, sciN iced b\ a ^anita . .-«,oxim'Uclv 95% of the current area in tact meets the current Zdtr the grandfather provision, sec. 10.03 requirement. i Ins makes Lot « u r n/- mniAnctf rcuuirement. According to the subd.(6)(a)( 1 H1984V It explicitly‘ Lot 3 tod.iv. this jrandfathet clause language of this provision^f i ^ ,he commissions insistence that I re-subdivide would alloxv me to do if Theieiore. I c j fo, new subdivisions, is cle.vly a previously subdivided parcel, and adhere t h q fc-subdivision demand even 100% of the current requirements. The planning commission's bufaTone\mpla^^^ parce'* vievv^Lots l,3.4andOutlot 1 as septate " have mentioned the phrase However, nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance or the a reason why the Lots must be re-. nor did I fmd any requirement that Subdivision Ordimince bdivided. The only reference to "previously " \ class I Subdivision shall be exempt from platting by the City and shall be permitted subdivision by metes ana bounds wL described by a Registered Land Surveyor il i. meets one or^more of the following criteria: ....The subdivision is a division of property previously combined tor tax purposes, A cate ful reading of this provision, in context, will “opoirfo :"r‘;'pt u -yX -y ^ ^ misinterpretarion of its Umguage and intenf I believe the City Administration views must would require subdivision for further building. Coumv Assessors office. —b“- - - - w # f