Laserfiche WebLink
MfsiimUfilKC ifirat <br />r*Kma]rtiirti <br />[tllfltJIlMIM <br />mm <br />MOIWJ <br />RTTiniMUilil^ <br />nmirtiiit] <br />nirat] <br />Mfiihlim <br />MM <br />•JCtlt <br />originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lets 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and <br />56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County <br />records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot <br />56, and owner’s duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56. Olsen said she has never owned <br />lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is <br />shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaffron asked if <br />this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaffron said that was a key point because lots 55 <br />and 56 were on one title. <br />Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error <br />when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three <br />are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this <br />combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. <br />Olsen said she was informed "hat the most expedient way to handle this issue is through <br />subdivision. She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that <br />created the illegal subdivision. She asked that the combination be reversed and reflected <br />in the tax records. <br />Gaffron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the <br />lots were legally combined. <br />Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. Gaffron said in 1977 <br />and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building <br />permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. <br />Gaffron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that <br />unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off <br />a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel.