2018/11/28 - LAND USE - VAR - Subdivision Variance - 617

Home Browse Search

2 and exacting workmanship, and he began the orderly research of our property deeds in relation to the adjoining properties in order to make sure that title and boundaries were clear and clean. Very early on Mike noted that the property lines had problems about them due to the work of several different prior surveyors. These lines and deeds would have to be resolved between parties with attention to the iron markers in the ground. And that had to await the coming of Spring and the melting of snow. My letter of April 28, 1997 to Mike Norton indicates that my brother, Paul, and I, met him on the property that day and walked the land in an effort to understand the relations between the several deeds and the likely location of monument markers in the ground. It was at this time that we agreed it would be important to let our immediate neighbors know that surveyors would be at work on our properties. On that same day, April 28th, letters were sent to Mrs. Dorothy Drake, Mr. and Mrs. James Patterson, and Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Kugler, giving notice of this survey work. My letter to my sister, Linda Willette, on July 15, 1997, indicates that Mike Norton's initial surveying was completed by that date, and that the results had been forwarded to our attorney, Mr. George Benson. The results, however, would require that the several parties meet to review and resolve them by agreement. The letters documenting this process run from September 11th through October 15th, when it appeared that all parties were satisfied, except that we had received no reply from Mrs. Drake (see the Nov 17, 1997 letter of George Benson to Paul Hammarberg). It is just at this point—mid-October 1997—when we first learned of the pending decision to reclassify the lakes and property requirements in order to regulate the density of development in the county. It should be clear that we had proceeded thoughtfully and carefully to this point, seeking to keep all relevant parties informed of our intentions. I did not know of the reclassification issue until I learned of the impending vote less than two weeks before its occurrence, recognizing in that moment that our intended 100' lot 2, would not meet the new 150' requirements. In a series of telephone calls between October 20th and 22"d, I sought to find ways, such as a grace period, during which we might complete the work we had set out to do without causing harm to the reclassification effort—talking in turn to Mike Norton, George Benson, Jim Flanigan, John Haack, and our representative to the Zoning Board, Mr. Tom Bowen (see telephone log). There simply was no turning back, and the Board voted the new ordinances into effect on October 23, 1997. Mr. Bowen suggested that we might seek a variance from the new ordinance since our process of subdivision had been in process for more than a year and was being made in good faith under the old statute. In the next few weeks, we turned our efforts to the proposed subdivision and sought to acquire 24 feet of property from Mrs. Drake, so that our proposed lot 1 (with the present cabin in place), and our proposed lot 2 (with an added 24') would meet the intent of the new ordinance. These efforts were summarized in Mike Norton's letter of November 17, 1997 to Jim Flanigan, in the hope and expectation that Mrs. Drake would sell that small parcel of land. In fact, we sought a new appraisal as a basis for establishing a negotiating price. Shortly after the turn of the new year, however, Mrs. Drake indicated that her children opposed selling this parcel, and the hope for this solution therefore dissolved. I informed Mr. Flanigan of this result in my letter of January 6, 1998 (and by telephone message), and indicated that we would request a variance under the new standards, having exhausted other remedies.