Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas L. McCarthy. Background . <br />June 16, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />The easement option typically resulted in lots that didn’t abut either a public or <br />private road, hence a variance for lack of frontage was automatically required. The way <br />to avoid this variance was to create a flag lot extending to the street. However, this <br />resulted in the need to grant a lot width variance since the lot width at the front setback <br />line from the street was merely the width of the flagpole and not even close to meeting <br />the width requirement. <br />The solution to both the easement and flag lot options was the outlot option. By <br />creating an outlot driveway that in a sense functioned as a private road, it could be <br />argued that the back lot now abuts a road, and the entire length of the lot line that abuts <br />the outlot would become the front lot line for defining a front setback line and therefore <br />the lot width. <br />Over the last five years or so, the City has normally required the outlot option, <br />and the area of the outlot'is excluded from lot area. An inadvertent effect of the new <br />shoreland lot width definition was to revive the possibility for flag lo»s on the lakeshore. <br />This would normally not be an issue except in a case such as McCarthy’s where total <br />area of the property does not allow for the outlot option. This leads to issue #2, i.e. <br />hardcover in the flagpole.