09-23-1987 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�1 J Page 2 October 5, 1967 Mr. Joseph A. Thomas There is no contention that this ordinance in this respect is un- reasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. Therefore, as I understand the problem, the answer lies in construing the zoning ordinance. As you know, said parcels comply with the ordinance.as respects their areas and fronts, but do not comply as to their depths since the depth of each, using the longer dimension, is 110 feet (using the shorter dimension, the depth of each would be 100 feet). Upon reading this ordinance and construing it according to what 1 understand to be the legal rules of construction, it is my opinion that it would be unlawful for the Village to issue such permits un- less the Village Council permitted a "variance ". The heading "Minimum Depth" undoubtedly refers to the minimum depth of a lot. A lot is defined in Section 2 -410 as follows: A parcel of land, abutting on a public street, being a lot designated in a recorded plat or a parcel occupied by a principal building upon the effective date of this ordinance, or being a parcel of record of sufficient size to provide the yards required by this ordinance. As platted prior to the effective date of this ordinance, said Lots 1 and 12 of both Blocks 1 and 2 of Roy Wilson Addition are rectangular in shape being 100 feet from east to west and 220 feet from north to south. They are parcels of land which abut a public street and are designated in a recorded plat. In other words, said Lots 1 and 12 would be considered Lots under the definition of lot given above, whereas said parcels referred to above (which are said designated lots divided into two equal parts) are not lots under this definition. Section 5-40 reads: No yard or lots existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirement set forth herein. Yards or lots created after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the minimum requirements established by this ordinance. This provision clearly refers to dimension and area, and, of course, dimension would include depth as well as front. You have noticed that Section 11 -10 (d) uses the word "shall ". Section 2 -10 (c) reads "the word "shall" is mandatory, while the word "may" is permissive;!. I an not aware of any other section in the ordinance which modifies the re- quirements as set out in Section 11 -10 (d). Consequently, I feel it is mandatory that the minimum requirements be complied with except when a "variance" is permitted. You have indicated to me that an authoritative opinion has been stated, at least informally so, that as to the minimum requirements for lot Page 8