Laserfiche WebLink
DoRSEY BC WHITNEY <br /> Mr. Thomas D. Burt October 13,1992 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Heights and should be "grandfathered"; that no variance for street frontage should be <br /> required even if they are separately owned. On the other hand, one could argue that the <br /> owner should be required to maintain them as one home site so that they conform to <br /> current ordinances, and that they should not be divided, since that would make them <br /> nonconforming. <br /> If St. Anthony had a number of old plats with very small lots, where it clearly takes <br /> two or more lots to make an adequate home site, I would recommend an ordinance to <br /> require such lots to be kept in single ownership. If there are not many such situations, <br /> however, and if most lots would be close to conforming, it might be better to consider <br /> such lots to be grandfathered. In the case of the Newgaard property, for example, if you <br /> took the position that the lots could not be separated without a variance, it might be- <br /> difficult to come up with the valid "hardship," even though the'Planning Commission <br /> and Council might want to grant a variance"because of other homes in the area with 66- <br /> foot frontages. <br /> I.would suggest that you look over the half-section maps for the City and see if <br /> there are many situations where the grandfathering of undersized lots might present a <br /> problem. If there are, perhaps we could deal with those specifically. If most situations are <br /> similar to the Newgaard situation, however, it might be advisable to consider those lots to <br /> be grandfathered. <br /> If you, the Planning Commission or Council have any further questions on this, <br /> please let me know. <br /> Ve r t'ru yours, <br /> K� <br /> WRS:gle William R. Soth <br />