Laserfiche WebLink
TO: Planninq Commission ' <br />FROM: Jeannc A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator <br />DATE: July 14, 1963 <br />SUBJECT: #761 Douglr.s H. Smith, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance - <br />Lot Area & Lot Width <br />Zoning District - LR-IC <br />Application - a) Lot Area <br />Required == 21,780 sf (100% Required) <br />Required = 17,424 sf (80`t Required) <br />F .sting = 16,748 sf or 77* <br />' iance = 5,032 sf or 23% (100€ re(juired) <br />Variance = 676 sf or 3.91 (80% required) <br />b) Lot Width <br />Required <br />= 100' <br />Required <br />= 80' <br />Existing = <br />55' <br />Variance <br />= 45' <br />Variance <br />= 25' <br />(100% Reauired) <br />(80% Required) <br />or 45% (100% Required) <br />or 31% (80% Required) <br />This application was accepted on the basis that the lot of <br />separate record did not meet 801 of the lot standards required <br />for the I.,R-1C zoning district. In reviewing the site and the <br />existing improvements on Lot 18, one cannot help but notice a <br />previous use/ownership connection between combined Lots 16 and <br />17 to the immediate north. The lot -is still maintained as part <br />of the yard. I reviewed the tax roles back to 1979 and found <br />that Douglas Smith is the owner of Lot 18. The applicant/owner <br />confirms the sale in 1977. I checked the tax files on Lots <br />16 and 17 and found the enclosed deed for the sale of all <br />three lots to J. Richard Tuthill in June of 1971. Planning <br />Commission has the following options in review of this <br />app i i.ca t. ion : <br />1) To table pending resolution of common ownership <br />question - I'm sure we'll have an unhappy applicant <br />as he is ready to build. Please note tl:at in his <br />addendum to the application, he openly reveals that <br />Lot 18 was separated from Lots 16 and 17 in 1977. <br />The I,R-lC zoning district was created in 1967. The <br />applicant has demonstrated complete openness In his <br />responses to the information sought in the <br />application. Once again review enclosed Ordinances <br />31.201 and 31.202. Our applicant could not <br />understand why he had to apply for a variance <br />because he did riot meet the 80% standard. Th- <br />common ownership questi.n will compound that <br />difficulty even more. Hopefully, I will grit the <br />opportunity to explain tht, common ownership issue <br />prior to the mee t i rin . <br />