Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 9 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Staff indicated as there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the <br />property, staff cannot recommend approva l of a Variance from the lot width <br />requirements. <br />Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. <br />Mr. Lindahl, stated he had made massive improvements to the appearance of the <br />property. He stated when he purchased the pr operty, one of the pluses was that it could <br />be split into a one acre lot. He stated he could have bought more land at the time, but the <br />property offered was set at the minimum at the time. He stated his family would like use <br />of the property and one of his sons would like to have a home site there. He stated he <br />needed the easement to build on the site. He indicated the entire easement for driveway <br />access was on tract A, and so the owner of tract A would own the entire driveway <br />easement. He stated there w ould not be a problem with the transfer of ownership of the <br />driveway easement over tract A. He stated the one acre lot with the old farm house made <br />a nice one-acre site and had room for three or four septic systems, and that on tract A <br />there were many good home sites remaining. He thanks the Board for considering this <br />request. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification as to where the new house was (the neighboring <br />property at 815 Ash St.) Mr. Lindahl replie d the new home was off of this property and <br />was not a part of this. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if it was wetlands to the east of his home. Mr. Lindahl replied on the <br />ten acres, there was approximately 4.5 acres of high ground. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated the applicant had close to the minimum width/frontage to begin with, <br />and now they were proposing to break that in half. He stated there was an easement <br />going through the middle of the property. If he were to change tract B to accommodate <br />the minimum frontage by instead of going north to south, to change that to east and west, <br />was there no way to work with the minimums in that case. Mr. Lindahl replied there was <br />a barn involved and this seemed to be the best way to split the property on the advise of <br />the soils inspector. <br />Mr. Lyden stated he had walked this property and it was the perfect place to build a house <br />and the issue was a nonexistent issue when you l ooked at this specifi c property in the way <br />it was laid out. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated if Lot B was rotated th at would meet the minimum square footage, <br />which would meet the Ordinances. <br />Mr. Lyden stated this was a natural thing they were propos ing. He stated the driveway <br />already existed as a natu ral road. He stated this was a b eautiful setting for a nice house. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated if tract B was one acre why couldn’t that be rotated. Chair Schaps <br />stated he was not sure if th ey rotated it, it would catch th e house and the driveway would <br />probably be in tract A.