Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment to Application - Appeal <br /> of Planning Commission Action <br /> William and Ann Potter <br /> C. Finally, the Commission previously granted a very similar <br /> Application, under similar circumstances, indicating the <br /> both Findings can be made in this situation, as well. <br /> Please see Resolution R-92-466. A copy of that Resolution <br /> is attached hereto, as well as one page of the applicable <br /> minutes of the meeting where this Resolution was adopted <br /> (See Exhibits 2 and 3) . <br /> In that case, as in this one, the owner sought to divide <br /> their 1. 64 acre parcel into two smaller ones. The Board <br /> approved the application because the lots to the north and <br /> south had at least two residences on each of them. This was <br /> not a granting of a special privilege because of the number <br /> of small parcels out there, creating a "de facto rural <br /> residential zone. " <br /> In addition, one of the neighbors did object in that case <br /> (See Exhibit 3 , "Opponents") . In this case, none of the <br /> neighbors object, and most have openly stated their support. <br /> See letters attached to original Application. <br /> This Application is even stronger than that approved in <br /> Resolution R-92-466, because the Potters will not create an <br /> additional homesite on the remainder, unlike the owners in <br /> the prior case. The Potters are even willing to accept <br /> formal building restrictions if necessary. This will enable <br /> the Board to find that "no special privileges" would be <br /> granted by approval of the Application for Variance. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Based on the foregoing, the Potters respectfully request <br /> that the Board approve this Appeal, and approve the <br /> underlying Application for Variance, thereby allowing the <br /> minor subdivision. <br /> DATED: September 23 , 1994 <br /> -7- <br />