PL PACKET 01172006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4 The property is approximately 15.614 acres in size. The property currently has an occupied primary dwelling structure located on it and two secondary dwelling units, one of which has been in continuous use and one which has not been used for a few years. The currently vacant second dwelling unit has been vacant since a few years ago when it was damaged by fire and which has been partially renovated since that time. The structure has its own private well, septic system, gas, electricity, and garage. The property owner would like to restore the partially destroyed structure for a second home on the property. The driveway for this second home branches off of the existing driveway that serves the main house. The property will remain one as 15.614 acre parcel. The Concept Guide Plan of the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as guided for R-P Public Recreation. It is surrounded by land that is guided for agriculture and residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property, and surrounding area, has always, in the past, been zoned for Agriculture. The property is served by a private septic system and a private well. The second residence will be served by a separate private septic system and a private will. The applicants would like to continue to use the primary home on their parcel, and also use the two secondary "farm-help" type homes on the property. The use is not a new use, as there have been two secondary homes on the property in addition to the primary home for decades, however as one of the homes has been vacant since the 1980s and there is no known conditional use permit for the accessory dwelling unit, a conditional use permit is required to use the additional home as an accessory dwelling unit. The conditional use permit is being requested for a type of residential property would allow an unattached structure to be located in the front of the home instead of behind the home. Commission Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Commission Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fowler asked Planner Atkinson if after the renovation, would the footprint be the same as it is now? Planner Atkinson stated the footprint would stay the same, and that the improvements to the second building will be primarily internal. Commissioner Dahlheimer asked Planner Atkinson if the Conditional Use Permit would pass on to the next person who resides at the home? Planner Atkinson replied yes it would, but the Commission could recommend that it be an interim use permit instead, which would only apply to this current property owner, or the Commission could leave it as it is currently stated that the use - - --could be used by the future property--owners. Councilmember Liaison Hoke stated that maybe the permit should expire when the property is subdivided. Commissioner Chair Johnson stated that would be creating and interim use permit. Councilmember Liaison Hoke discussed whether it should be an interim or conditional use permit, and the effect when they subdivide the property so that the owners would have to either create a new lot for the building or remove the building. Planner Atkinson stated that the cautious way would be to change the CUP or IUP to the permit only being valid until the land was subdivided. Applicant Steve Boulka stated that the family has no intent of subdividing the property in the future. He stated that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the property is guided as park so any future subdividing of the land is probably not going to be approved. He asked the Commission to allow the CUP and to allow the title to change ownership in the family if the owner, Elsie Stephens, died. He stated the family has no intent to sell the property to anyone outside of the family and the only reason the title would ever change names is because a family member has died and the property is getting passed down to someone else within the family. http://www.ci.dayton.nm.us/pc06O9O5.htm 1/11/2006