Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 8, 2002 <br />Page 5 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />medical bills. He stated the Thorps’ neve r thought anything of the lots being put under <br />one PIN and they were surpri sed this was an issue now. <br />Chair Schaps stated if they had a pla tted subdivision in the 1960’s, how could they <br />become combined by the County. Mr. Smys er replied the land was platted in 1947, <br />which predated the City. Why the three lots were combined into one tax parcel in 1983 <br />was unexplained. He stated they had no idea why they were combined. He stated the <br />City applied the rule that if it was one lega l description and one PIN, it was one lot. He <br />stated when Lot 30 was broken off, normal ch annels were not followed and this probably <br />should not have occurred. He stated for this division, normal channels were being <br />followed. <br />Mr. Corson replied that by combining all th ree lots, the County may have saved the <br />applicant’s money because they could claim a ll of the property as homestead. Mr. Joyer <br />replied adjacent lots to a homestead could also be homesteaded. <br />Chair Schaps stated that all the applicants were asking for was to have the lots as they <br />were in 1947 when the plat was originally ap proved. Mr. Joyer repl ied that was correct. <br />Ms. Lane stated the lot being purchased had an existing garage that was not being moved. <br />Mr. Joyer replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Corson asked if existing home had a septic system. Mr. Joyer replied the Thorps’ <br />septic system was replaced a couple of years ago. <br />Mr. Corson asked if there was room for a s econdary septic site on Lot 29. Mr. Joyer <br />stated they had plenty of depth for a secondary site. <br />Mr. Corson stated asked if both sites would have a primary and secondary septic site. <br />Mr. Joyer replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Joyner stated the Thorps had held onto th is lot for 40 years as their retirement nest <br />egg and wished to sell the lot at this time. <br />Mr. Corson stated there were two existing lo ts originally and he recommended approval <br />of the request. <br />Ms. Lane stated she did not see any probl em with the existing garage on the lot. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision. The motion was <br />supported by Mr. Rafferty. <br />Motion carried 4-0. <br />C.NEECK, OAK LANE, VARIANCE <br />Staff presented the application by explaining that approval of this lot as a separate piece <br />of property depended on City Council approv al of the Variance and Minor Subdivision