Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 8, 2002 <br />Page 5 <br />• medical bills. He stated the Thorps' never thought anything of the lots being put under <br />one PIN and they were surprised this was an issue now. <br />• <br />Chair Schaps stated if they had a platted subdivision in the 1960's, how could they <br />become combined by the County. Mr. Smyser 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 legal description and one PIN, it was one lot. He <br />stated when Lot 30 was broken off, normal channels 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 three lots, the County may have saved the <br />applicant's money because they could claim al y the.` •p; y as homestead. Mr. Joyer <br />replied adjacent lots to a homestead could als <br />Chair Schaps stated that all the applicants were as ngyfor was $have` the lots as they <br />were in 1947 when the plat was originally approved 1`. foyer replied 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 r <br />stated they had plenty of depth for a <br />a secondary septic site on Lot 29. Mr. Joyer <br />ndary site. <br />Mr. Corson stated asked if bot] <br />Mr. Joyer replied that was corre+ <br />Mr. Joyner stated the Thorps had held onto this lot for 40 years as their retirement nest <br />egg and wished to sell the l t this time. <br />Is would have a primary and secondary septic site. <br />Mr. Corson stated there were two existing lots originally and he recommended approval <br />of the request. <br />Ms. Lane stated she did not see any problem 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 approval of the Variance and Minor Subdivision <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />