My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/08/2002 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
05/08/2002 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2014 10:36:12 AM
Creation date
2/13/2014 10:36:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
05/08/2002
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.