2/20/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 2 01980 42 FAc.i746 PROPERTY FORMERLY WAS OWNED BY MR. TURMAN WHO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY HAD BEEN REZONED IN 1971. THIS SITUATION APPARENTLY DERIVED FROM A MISTAKE IN A SURVEY, AND EVIDENTLY THERE WAS AN OVERLAP. MRS. BUSS STATED THAT SHE IS CONCERNED AND CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THIS HAPPENED TO BE REZONED WITHOUT HER BEING NOTIFIED. SHE FELT HER PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEVALUED BECAUSE THIS WAS REZONED WITHOUT HER BEING AWARE OF IT, AND REITERATED THAT THE 14' IS HIGHLY IMPORTANT. COMMISSIONER LOY EXPLAINED THAT THE LAW ABOUT THIS HAS CHANGED DURING THE YEARS, BUT THE BOARD HAS ALWAYS MADE A DEDICATED EFFORT THROUGH THE YEARS TO NOTIFY PEOPLE. SHE CONTINUED TO EXPLAIN THE POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH REGARD TO NOTIFICATION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION ENSUED ABOUT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT IN R-1 THERE IS A 10' SETBACK ON A SIDE YARD AND 20' FOR THE REAR YARD. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO DISSIMILAR ZONES ADJOINING, SUCH AS IN THIS SITUATION, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 10' BUFFER AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE INWARD, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF lO', OR A TOTAL OF 20'. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROPER AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE WAS REZONED, AND THE ZONING ACTUALLY HAS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE, BUT IT MIGHT BE 14' TOO FAR TO THE EAST. MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE THE EXISTING SURVEY AS FACT. ATTORNEY CLEM INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE LINE SHOWN HAS BEEN THE PROPERTY LINE FOR A GOOD MANY YEARS AND THEY WENT THROUGH A QUIET TITLE SUIT AT ONE TIME. HE NOTED THAT MR. TURMAN HAD THOUGHT THE STRIP WAS COVERED BY THE REZONING OF 1971. 52 _I