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

Home Browse Search

3 I have sought to make clear that our effort—both under the old standards and under the new ones—was and is to abide by the Board's intentions in adopting the new classification. The property we are seeking to subdivide possesses more than 330 feet of lakeshore and more than enough depth to account for the square -foot acreage requirements of two lots; dividing this single property in half is not feasible due to the location of the present cabin. By establishing a subdivision line at the nearest point east of the present cabin, while recognizing required setbacks, yeilds a subdivision where lot possesses 207 feet of lakeshore and lot 2 possesses 126 feet of lakeshore. The area as a whole maintains the required overall density of development that the new ordinance envisions. Thus, we seek to satisfy the intent of the ordinance by apportioning the land differently in order to meet a dilemma posed by the location of the present cabin. Not to allow us this variance will certainly impose an unnecessary hardship, and will deny us all reasonable use of the property. In and of itself, the property is sufficient for two buildable lots. The hardship we face is not self-imposed, since the placement of the present cabin preceded the new ordinance, which defined the more extensive subdivision lot size. We made a substantial "good faith" effort to secure the small additional parcel of land needed to meet the new standard, but met with an unwilling seller. This hardship would not have existed in the absence of the new zoning ordinance. As to unique property limitations, there appear to be none. The physical features were reviewed at the very outset of our efforts by Mr. John Haack and were judged sufficient for a building lot under the 100' design, and Mr. Jim Flanigan was so notified. Finally, the granting of this variance will not harm the public interest because it is in conformity with the overall purpose and intent of the new ordinance—which is to regulate the density of development on lakes of the various classes. The actual departure envisioned in this request is minimal because the average of the two subdivided lots maintains the overall building density within the standards of the ordinance. I very much appreciate the time and thought given to this situation by the members of the Board, and ask that the requested variance be granted. Thank you. A ammarberg Personal Representative in the Estate of Ruth S. Hammarberg Encl. Cc: George Benson Michael Norton