Laserfiche WebLink
■' :^m <br />IPRIL 14, 1986 <br />has to consider the <br />ests if they were to <br />3y allowing one home <br />ince of the 2 acre <br />fron noted that the <br />.me that Ferrell has <br />the code did not <br />” lots until 1984. <br />t was the Council's <br />nds today and that <br />bers are not legally <br />: memo) within a 1/2 <br />arty, there were 37 <br />39 with 2 acres or <br />e common ownership <br />: in the surrounding <br />lots would support <br />ron stated <br />Bms under <br />d1, etc. <br />that the <br />limited <br />rney Blatz the legal <br />approved . <br />a potential problem <br />\a far as granting a <br />lue hardship to Mr. <br />similar request was <br />onstrate a hardship, <br />id insufficient area <br />ler opinion that if <br />roll's property from <br />est in effect they <br />her there would be <br />application without <br />house can be built <br />system 2) it is <br />lots 3) applicant <br />*.. * ■ r • <br />■u <br />of - <br />tel <br />•v.B <br />tm <br />W:i <br />HnroTBS OF THE RBGDIAR OROlK) COOHCIIi KBBTIHG HEW APRIL 14, 1986 <br />#990 lRD FERRELL continued <br />Attorney Blatx stated that it is a policy <br />Council must decide upon and that the undue hardship <br />finding must be spelled out in the resolution to support <br />the variance approval. <br />CounciInember Grabeic stated that it seemed to be the <br />■just" thing to do to grant this variance and he felt it <br />would not be making that much of an exception for other <br />cases that may come up. <br />Mayor Butler stated that this was a dilemma due to the <br />unique circumstances however# she felt realistically she <br />would have to recommend denial because# in her view# it <br />would completely change the zoning policy. She <br />expressed her fear in having to plant another sewer <br />system. <br />Counci Imember Frahm stated that he has problems with the <br />■common ownership" issue and whether there is a <br />difference between sewered areas vs. non-sewered areas. <br />He noted that if this request were approved the <br />ordinance should be changed and be more clearly defined. <br />CounciImember Grabek stated that he felt the direction <br />of the change made in 1974 was to be able to provide a <br />reviewal on an individual basis. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows stated that one way <br />to differentiate between common ownership vs. separate <br />ownership# in separate ownership the hardship would be <br />not allowing them to use their property# whereas# in Mr. <br />Ferrell's case he is able to live on his property and <br />use it. She also noted that the only hardship in Mr. <br />Ferrrell's case is financial which cannot be considered <br />as a valid hardship. <br />Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing <br />one additional home but not two. <br />Councilmember Hammerel stated that this is a hard <br />decision but he felt two houses in an area where there <br />is not enough area for one house without a variance is <br />an excess# especially in an unsewered zone. <br />Councilmember Adams stated that he felt sympathetic in <br />Mr. Ferrell's case but he felt 1 acre lots in an <br />unsewered area is undesirable. <br />Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be a <br />problem because Mr. Ferrell's attorney was not notified. <br />■1^ <br />mmm <br />a: -:': -V ■ US”-*.'* • . • ■