Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 9 <br />Staff indicated as there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the <br />property, staff cannot recommend approval of a Variance from the lot width <br />requirements. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant 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 property, 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 <br />easement. He stated there would not be a prob <br />driveway easement over tract A. He stated <br />a nice one -acre site and had room for three o <br />there were many good home sites remaining. <br />request. <br />the entire driveway <br />ansfer of ownership of the <br />the old farm house made <br />at on tract A <br />considering this <br />c sy <br />the Bo <br />Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification as to <br />property at 815 Ash St.) Mr. Lindahl r <br />was not a part of this. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if it was wetl <br />ten acres, there was approximat <br />Mr. Rafferty state <br />and now they wet <br />going throu <br />the minimum <br />was there no <br />a barn involved <br />the soils inspector. <br />ew h•u ewas (the neighboring <br />ome was off of this property and <br />home. Mr. Lindahl replied on the <br />5 acres of hi - ` ground. <br />to the minimum width/frontage to begin with, <br />half. He stated there was an easement <br />1perty. f he were to change tract B to accommodate <br />oing north to south, to change that to east and west, <br />inimums in that case. Mr. Lindahl replied there was <br />e the best way to split the property on the advise of <br />e proposing c <br />middle ofe <br />N •. <br />tage by instea' <br />ork with t <br />�eeme.# <br />Mr. Lyden stated he had wed this property and it was the perfect place to build a house <br />and the issue was a nonexistent issue when you looked at this specific property in the way <br />it was laid out. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated if Lot B was rotated that would meet the minimum square footage, <br />which would meet the Ordinances. <br />Mr. Lyden stated this was a natural thing they were proposing. He stated the driveway <br />already existed as a natural road. He stated this was a beautiful 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 they rotated it, it would catch the house and the driveway would <br />probably be in tract A. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />