10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre recordr it stated as r upon January 1, 1975 3e) under single oes not meet the re- i may be utilized for led that in the judg- affect public health re. A lot of record acrer which does not area or width only# ling purposes if the the average width of y sewer or meets all Dr other governmental :s of this or other could have granted a irshipr but the Code Dr the separation of ienced by the outcome . was that unsewered buildable and could :ion of lots included imended to include the non-conformingr un- sewerr aligned in a : private road or road not permitted without Lred if the separation Ltes that satisfy the r. "V '■M:. m •V ■. i.. Zoning Pile #990 November 13# 1985 Page 4 of 5 been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to large dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely chey would aprove two new houses, and perhaps wcmia allow one new house rerulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly parcels be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has orovided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lo could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future applicant has not provided a survey of the property w^ith house, nor has hi^rovided septic testing to prove alternate site for a drainfield. These items were the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (se notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the °®P®^^ permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? which presumably denies them any status unless re subdivide . We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much th- same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on the..e as separate building sites. ■ ■ Zoning Pi November Page 5 of A fu the neig Ferrell's acres, 2 increment group.) to serve although lots ave acre zon< less thai are d« tr sewers, situatior Rec£ site on i few yean Are that just