Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1985. PAGE 7 <br />Af'fu'RUGENE NELSON <br />~LAND RECORD LOTS <br />SUBDIVISION OF A LOT <br />LINE REARRANGEMENT <br />16 & 22 <br />Jay T. Smedberg was present. There was no one pre- <br />sent from the public for this application. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that <br />this matter had been before the Planning Commission <br />previously. There has been more research done to <br />find out exactly what the property rights are for Big <br />Island. This application is a proposal to divide the <br />long lakeshore strip into two pieces, one that would <br />be combined with Record Lot No. 22, one that would be <br />combined with Lot 6, 7 and 8 and Lot C into Record <br />Lot 16 and that does exist in the zoning code as <br />Record Lot 16. The question was brought up last time <br />was why is Lot C inc 1 uded with Record Lot 16, can it <br />be or why can't it be a separate lot? Gaffron stated <br />that in Section 10.31 of the code it specifically <br />deals with future happeni~gs on Record Lots, so that <br />when a single party becomes owner of adjacent parcels <br />of land they become, from a zoning definition stand- <br />point, a Single Record Lot, and that definition does <br />include parcels that are separated by a platted un- <br />developed right-of-way. <br />Rovegno noted that the lot in question is not a <br />record lot of anything. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that <br />there is a mistake in the code, which should be <br />corrected. <br />Mr. Smedberg stated that the only request on his <br />application was getting a separate tax number for the <br />two pieces of land which are recorded as separate <br />torrens property. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that he <br />agrees that approval of the divisions appropriate, <br />and delete the condition that Lot C combined as part <br />of this division. He noted that for about half of <br />the Big Island record lots, Resolutions have never <br />been completed, dating back to 1983. He felt that if <br />we give the applicants 6 months to resolve the paper- <br />work for the automatic variances, if within 6 months <br />this has not been completed they would loose the <br />benefit of the automatic variance and would have to <br />come in for a variance with the standard fees and <br />possibly not be granted the variance.