Laserfiche WebLink
The 1967 code did not discuss common ownership properties <br />nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots <br />of record. However, by using the term ‘‘Single Separate <br />Ownership", it implied that other types of ownership would <br />not be granted similar consid#^ration. Under this 1967 Code, <br />the applicant would have been allowed to build on Parcel 3 <br />without a variance because the lot met the standards of the <br />R-IC zoning district. Parcel 2 would have required a lot <br />area variance in order to be legally buildable. <br />29, The zoning code adopted January 1, 1975, which declared <br />the property to be zoned RR-IB, 2 acre single family <br />residential, stated as follows regarding existing lots of <br />record: <br />31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon <br />January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the zoning code) <br />under single separate ownership in an "R" district, <br />which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code <br />as to area or width may be utilized for a single family <br />detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judge ­ <br />ment of the Council such use does not adversely affect <br />public health or safety and the following requirements <br />are met: <br />31.203. In ”R* Districts of Greater Than One <br />Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the <br />City in excess of one acre, which does not meet <br />the requirements of this zoning code as to area or <br />width only, may be utilized for single family <br />detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: <br />i) it is at least one acre in size, and the <br />average width of the lot is at least 100 <br />feet; and <br />ii) it is either served by public sanitary <br />sewer or meets all the septic system <br />requirements of the City or other <br />governmental body; and <br />iii) it otherwise meets the requirements of <br />this or other applicable ordinances. <br />Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have <br />granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate <br />ownership, but the Code again did not specifically disc ass <br />any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. <br />Page 9 of 13