10-23-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 4 of 5 October 19, 1995 Zoning File #2000 Cortlen Cloutier, 2480 Casco Point Road the problems created for applicant based on requiremtnt«i of the current Code. Staff has met with the applicant to go o\'er the specifics of the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code requirements. Applicant advised that his main goal is to obtain a building permit tor his son s new residence. Staff reconfirmed that the dvision of Lot 1 is no problem as the lot meets all requirements of the Zoning Code aiKl tte division will have no impact on the parcel that remains. Road issues were only raised when applicant discussed a future division of Lot 3. Applicant iK)ted he will remain the owner of Lots 3 and 4 md his son will own Lot 1. If Lot 3 is to be divided at some future date based on the standards of the Code at that time, the applicant s son may be asked to join in that subdivision if needed. Review Exhibit R. the applicant has asked the City to reconsider the original simple subdivision application before the City. As staff has noted m recent reviews, it becomes necessary to set forth the intent of the City where disacreements or unresolved issues remain tor future consideration and action. Staff has asked the City Anomey to provide language that will memorialise or set tlic record straight as to both the applicant and the City’s positions regarding this division and any further division of riir. Cloutier's property. Tom Barren has drafted the following language which staff shall incorporate in the resolution approving the division: in the subdivision application, it became apparent that Mr. Cloutier and the Cit>- disagree about the status of the land w hich is being subdivided herein. The City takes the position that the land being subdivided by this application had been combined into a single lot. Mr. Cloutier takes the position that the land combination was not authorized by him. that the land has never been legally combined, and that the lots created by the subdivision previous to the combination are still in existence. The City has made clear to .Mr. Cloutier its view that this and any fumre subdivisions need to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations in place at the time of the subdivision application, and that it will not recognize the lots as they existed previous to the combination. Mr. Cloutier disagrees, bi’t has determined to proceed with this subdivision, recognizing that the lots created hereby are not. in the City's view, subject to further division without a subsequent approved subdivision application. ,\t the September meeting, the applicant raised the issue of an additional payment tor a sewer ’assessmeni" for Lot 1. Mr. Cloutier has been in contact with the City and has been advised that the payment is not a sewer assessment but is defined as a sewer connection charge resulting Irom costs to the City for improvements to the existing system and maintenance costs. The City will e.xpect pavmen't of $1,284.50 based on the current 1995 Fee Schedule.