02/11/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Drossis said Parcel A will continue to have the house and use the Park Lane address and Parcel B which is vacant will remain vacant and continue to use the Masticlc Road driveway. She has no intention of developing Parcel B. Mr. Laslco asked how the home ended up with two mailing addresses and Mr. Montegani said it was that way when the home was purchased. Mr. Rerlco aslced if a home was to be built on the vacant lot, would it require a variance for the driveway or required setbaclc. Mr. Collins said he was not sure if a driveway would require a variance. Mr. Mitchell said Parcel A which accesses Parlc Lane has an approximately 21 foot wide driveway and does not require a variance therefore Parcel B entrance area which is 28 feet wide would not require a variance for a driveway. Mr. Weideman offered to clarify the addresses as the home which now uses Parlc Lane has a tax address of Masticlc Road. When the cul-de-sac was constructed the previous owners of parcel 237-25-018 sold a section of their land to the previous owners of the parcel in question. That owner used the same drive as parce1237-25-007 until the Park Lane driveway was installed. Once the driveway was installed the mail and garbage piclcup toolc place along Park Lane so the address was assigned through the post office. He questioned if the variance was in affect now or once the lot split takes place. Mr. O'Malley said the variance goes into affect if the lot split is approved. Mr. Weideman asked if a home is consti-ucted on the vacant lot which way it would face. Mr. Bohlmann said he believed that the home would face east. Mr. Weideman asked Mr. Montegani if parce1237-25-021 which is owned by both applicants would remain vacant. Mr. Montegani said the title would go to Ms. Drossis as would parcel B. Mr. Laslco advised that the discussion needed to focus on the lot split request and that the reason for the lot split was not a consideration. He said the new lot could be developed for one single family home. He thanked Mr. Weideinan for clarifying how the Parlc Lane address was adopted. Mr. Bratton said that the parcel listed owned by Mr. Early was in fact owned by he and his wife and is vacant. Mr. Fatsie said he attended the Board of Zoning Appeals and the neighbors do not want to see anything which is going to negatively impact property values or the character of the neighborhood. He said there may be other methods of adjusting the lot line and transfer ownership without a lot split which would prevent the land from being developed. Mr. O'Malley said that splitting the lot is creating the new lot line in accordance to the zoning codes. Mr. Collins said it does not matter who is going to own a lot you can not just adjust a lot line legally without doing a lot split or consolidation. Ms. Wenger said the application is to split a lot not resolve property transfer issues. The character, personalities or reasons the applicants have for the lot split does not matter; the commission is to detertnine if splitting the lot makes sense. Can the new lot once created sustain a home in accordance to the current zoning codes? Based upon the variance granted, it can. Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. lZerko to approve CMS09-02: Lot Split of PPN 237- 25-008 at 23865 Mastick Road into two (2) parcels (A & B) located in the Single Family Residence A Zoning District, creating lots • Parcel A- 0.8741 acres with frontage ancl access from Park Lane. • Parcel B- 1.0901 acres with frontage and access from Mastick Roacl. The motion was unanimously appi-oved 7-0. 2