05/12/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2004 Page 10 Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. John DeHaven, 1612 Birch Street, stated the reason they wanted to do this was so they could get a reverse mortgage to supplement their income. He stated they were on social security and they could no longer survive on their social security. He pointed out that there was a City sign indicating that there would be a road eventually cutting across their property. He stated this was a hardship for them and he believed this request fit into the hardship. He noted they had done a lot to beautify the property by planting over 2,000 trees. Mr. Hyden asked before they paid the $250.00, did staff inform them that this request would not apply. Mr. DeHaven stated staff had given them the rules which showed hardship and he believed their request fit under the hardship. He indicated this was their "only out ". Mr. Tralle asked why couldn't they reverse mortgage the entire 15 acres. Ms. Houle stated they wanted to leave the rest of the land for their children. She noted with a reserve mortgage, once they died, the home would go to the bank. She indicated it was very important that they plan their estate now. Mr. Rafferty asked if they could put the reverse mortgage on their house and barn only. Ms. Houle replied they needed a legal description and the legal description as it was today, included the whole parcel. She noted they could not sell the land either because of the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Vice Chair Rafferty asked if they realized that there was a 10 -acre minimum and that a five -acre parcel was not standard. Ms. Houle replied their entire parcel was originally 38 acres. She noted this was farmland and if they wanted to they could raise pigs, but she did not believe their neighbors would appreciate that. Ms. Houle stated their intent was to avoid a mess with their estate planning. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it was not the intent of the City to avoid or make messes of people's estates. He stated they had seen hardships when it came to dollars and cents, but this did not follow the guidelines. Ms. Houle stated breaking off their small parcel of land did not affect the City. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it did affect the City because it would set a precedent. Mr. DeHaven stated the City should get rid of the hardship requirement then because they were coming before the Board with this requirement. Mr. Smyser stated the hardship could not be due to economic considerations alone, according to the State legislature. He noted an economic hardship was not the type of hardship the variance was based on. He stated this was a difficult concept to understand, but the law did not say that economics was a hardship and the City was required to follow State law. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to deny the variance request for 1612 Birch Street, Martha Houle /DeHaven, because the proposed variances would provide for a minor subdivision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the DRAFT MINUTES •