12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 17 1991 s BOOK 8b F',1,;E 7 A potential buyer of a portion of the subject ±5 acre parcel, Michael Schlitt, has applied for a building permit for a single family home on a portion of the ±5 acre parcel (shown as "Parcel 2" on attachment #2). No building permit can be issued, since no separate -parcel for the new residence can be created that is under the 5 acre minimum parcel size. Mr. Schlitt is now requesting that the county allow the property to be split and issue the building permit. His justification for this request is that he has relied on the May, 1990 rezoning approval, was unaware of the effect of the June 18, 1991 land use designation changes, and has made a "good faith" effort to effect a split (by selling -off a portion of the subject ±5 acre tract) since the 1990 rezoning. To support his request, Mr. Schlitt has sent information to planning staff (see attachment $4) asserting that:. a. After obtaining the 1990 rezoning approval, he assumed that no regulatory changes would be made that would affect his ability to create two or more lots out of the subject ±5 acre parcel. b. He was not aware that the -June 18, 1991'land usW designation changes would affect the subject property. C. He was not able to split the ±5 acre tract by selling -off a Portion of the tract to another party until recently when he found a willing buyer (Michael Schlitt). [Note: the parcel could have been split by__recording a separate_ deed for a portion for the subject parcel.] d. He has attempted to sell-off a portion of the property since the 1990 rezoning by: listing a portion of the property for sale, and subsequently lowering the offering price; arranging with the mortgagor to release the mortgage over a portion of the property subject to an executed contract with a buyer; and expending funds for appraisals and surveying work necessary to sell-off a portion of the property. Staff's determination, which has been upheld by the Planning and Zoning Commission, is that the 1 unit per 5 acre minimum parcel size restriction applies to the parcel and cannot be legally waived or altered by the county under the existing comprehensive land use plan. It is also staff's opinion that there is no compelling equitable estoppel argument that would enable or force the county to allow. Mr. Schlitt to go forward with his parcel split proposal under the current comprehensive plan. Mr. Schlitt argues that he has relied. upon the county's May 11, 1990 rezoning action to allow the proposed split. Although Mr. Schlitt did expend some funds around the time of the rezoning to sell-off a portion of the property, a parcel split could have been accomplished anytime between May 11, 1990 and June 18, 1991 without selling -off a portion of the subject property. Anytime in that 13 month periodia separate deed could have been filed, subject to.the existing mortgage (no mortgagee's consent would have been required) , that would have split the . t5 acre parcel. Thus, Mr. Schlitt had the opportunity for 13 months to act upon the RS -1 zoning/R land use designation standards without selling -off a portion of the --property; but he failed to do so. It is staff's opinion that there is no compelling equitable estoppel argument that would keep the county from applying the existing Comprehensive plan standards to the parcel split proposal. Accepting such an argument could set a dangerous precedent that could force the county to grandfather -in "well-intentioned" property owners, while forcing others to adhere to the new comprehensive plan standards. The effective da -e --of the new comprehensive plan standards has been equitably and consistently enforced and must continue to be applied and enforced uniformly. 26