Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2002 <br />Page 9 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Comment: There is no hardship demonstr ated or apparent; rather the proposed <br />lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural <br />zone. <br />4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any <br />special privilege that would be deni ed by this ordinance to other lands, <br />structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique <br />circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. <br />5.) That the proposed actions will be in keep ing with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with th e spirit and intent <br />of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where <br />hardship/unique physical ci rcumstances are present. <br />Staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision w ould result in two lots : Tract B would have <br />a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330’ for <br />property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would <br />have 330’ of width and road frontage, but it would not be conti guous width or frontage. <br />Alternate configurations presented by the applicant meet the minimum lot width/road <br />frontage, but do not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. As a result, staff <br />cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. <br />Staff noted as there are no hardship issues or unique circumst ances apparent on the <br />property, staff cannot recommend approva l of a Variance from the lot width <br />requirements. <br />Chair Schaps asked if they made the smaller lot bigger, was that the only flaw. Ms. Gretz <br />replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Lyden stated the reason they had mi nimum lot frontage was to have orderly <br />development in the future. He noted the reality was that this was the right way to develop <br />this property. He noted there was not going to be development around this property <br />because there was wetland on one side and a cemetery on the other side. <br />Chair Schaps stated in this case were w ould likely be no development alongside of this <br />property. <br />Mr. Lyden stated in his opini on the first option presented la st month was the best option. <br />Mr. Zych asked if there was a park dedication fee to be paid. Ms. Gretz replied the park <br />dedication would be $1,685 and appli cant was aware of this amount.