Laserfiche WebLink
removes the regular condominium from the scope of this <br />Ordinance. <br />Lengthy debate took place on the pros and cons of <br />allowing flag lots to be created in new subdivisions. Mr. <br />Robert Lloyd argued that the wording on page'56 of the <br />ordinance definitely prohibits flag lots. He felt very <br />strongly that the straight lot line requirement would <br />restrict creativity and stifle imagination. <br />Community Development Director Bruce King argued that <br />the flag lots would lead to possible land -locked lots, loss <br />of privacy with front yards overlooking backyards of <br />adjacent lots, etc. <br />An unidentified man came forth with two suggestions to <br />compromise the,situation: 1) When the definition of a <br />subdivision reads 3 or more parcels, you are excluding the <br />division of land in the 2 parcels when you could control all <br />the subdivision by having the ordinance read, "any division <br />of land." 2) There is a flat out statement that flag lots <br />are prohibitive. His suggestion was that the Ordinance <br />state that a flag lot is a conditional situation and could <br />be approved.by the Planning Commission on an individual <br />basis and brought before the County Commission only if there <br />was a conflict between the Planning Commission and the <br />owner. <br />Attorney Brandenburg suggested the following changes: <br />On page Page 56 2) Shape of Lots (a) Delete "existing <br />streets to the property prevents such a design." The last <br />phrase of that sentence shall read, "unless the relationship <br />of existing or planned streets combined with the size of the <br />property in question would allow a superior design not <br />utilizing straight lot lines." On Page 56, G. Lots, (2c) <br />shall read, "Flag lots will be avoided whenever possible." <br />Chairman Bird announced that this Public Hearing would <br />be postponed until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon, as the lunch <br />41 <br />BOOK 54 Fri <br />