Laserfiche WebLink
ry-'- a'-' ■; - yis -kwnMm’^.ik ••■*'ywWv-'- V • <br />Zoning Administrate <br />load - <br />aring <br />to create two new 5 <br />Lng residence. <br />ytefiZfZ^ <br />perty Owner White <br />nershlp <br />ing Building Sites <br />.veway System <br />Subdivision 21 ^cT) <br />ing houS6) <br />irvey - does ^^is <br />r Watertown Road?) <br />or P'lbi-^f-fvewaY^easement driveway# <br />/ision 21 (c). <br />existing primary <br />on file indies?® ield sites within <br />alternate sLce is <br />Lot 1 contains an <br />r of the Relersgord <br />not excluded this <br />of lot area as <br />a..• ./a:a <br />w • ^i^ ia: .; . ■; -.■ \ • »■-*/. ■■.■'..'.■■yiy- '■'■:■;'v ’■..K'^^'.:.;-.;.:..: ^'V ■:/ /••■-■:•; ■ . ■ ••'. ••: • - t :*. •• •••!■.•:• a.-.. ./■ •;. ■' ••,-ItZoning Pile #1470 October 10# 1989 Page 2 of 5 j r-fc 2 la a "fla<T* lot which would have 60* of <br />frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion <br />of Lot^2 also is covered by the 60* existing road <br />which again was not excluded from the area calculation by <br />the applicant’s surveyor. Primary and <br />sites for Lot 2 would be located along the northerly lot <br />line of Lot 2. <br />Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject ^ • <br />prior variance application whic\ was <br />Subdivision proposal increases the area of <br />5.0 acres (including the proposed ®®®®®®"^^* ."cessthe issues with that prior variance request was access <br />across the Luce Line Trail# which the applicant could not <br />obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 <br />on a public or private outlet road# but gives it about 158 <br />of frontage on a proposed 30* private road eas«nent. <br />Cutlot A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting <br />propertv owner^at^4360 Bayside Road. However# ®®Pj^^ <br />testing indicates the only alternate site available Lot <br />1 would be within the area of Outlet A this Pf*®® * <br />The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements ^® <br />septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within <br />the building lot which they serve. <br />The proposed dividing line between Lots ^ ®"^ ^ 9«n®rally <br />follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30 easement J'* <br />located to fit the existing topography. The propert <br />contains steep slopes which significantly limit the <br />potential roadway locations. <br />A number of variances would be required in order to approve <br />he plat as proposed: <br />A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lack of frontage <br />on a public roadway. <br />B) Lots 1, 2 t 3 would require lot width ''*^^®J}p®®: <br />100* setback from Bayside Road# Lot 2 is only 60 ^ide where <br />300* in lot width is normally required. Lots 14 3 <br />front on a public roadway nor a private road outlet# h®"ce <br />they each technically require a 100% variance for defined <br />lot width. <br />C) Section 11.03.24# the definition of "minimum lot area", <br />°/.9?“cres‘. E."h lot would require . <br />lot area variance. <br />m T: <br />V , :i.- r. <br />'•V-'-T.;. r •• <br />\ <br />1 <br />'V :v> <br />mmtM: <br />IS®.