10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

zoned RR-IB, 2 Acre recordr it stated as ] upon January 1# 1975 3e) under single oes not meet the re- i may be utilized for ied 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 r sewer or meets all r other governmental s of this or other could have granted a irship, but the Code 3r the separation of ienced by the outcome . was that unsewered buildable and could :ion of lots included imended to include the non-conforming, un sewer, aligned in a private road or road lot permitted without red if the separation tes that satisfy the r. tm- -•u m ■;S w- ms 4V zoning Pile #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal variance application at stcff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant direction from the Plannirg Commission and Council prior to spending ^9 dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to was that it is unlikely chey would aprove two new houses, allow one new house rerulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total proper y. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has orovided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lot could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing house, nor has he^rovided septic testing to prove that the property has an 2l?erna?e site for a drainfield. These items were refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the 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? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re-subdivideo. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent parcels were lowered as of 1983, which gives the ®PP®®^®5J®® separated lots were then given "accessory lot value and ^ value, since the main lot land value increased markedly at the Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two 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 Ferre11 * a acres, 2 increment group.) to serve although lots ave acre zon< less thai are d^tr sewers, situatior Reca site on a few yeari Are that just i*’ ■ . r ■ T ' - ..'V .