Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

Page 6--June I0,2006 clause that "all lots which are part of a subdivision legally recorded with the [county] ... prior to ... 1976 ... shall be considered .,. a legally buildable lot even though such lot may not conform to the minimum requirement of the ordinance." The amendment also included a merger provision that mandated that -- where contiguous with another parcel of land under common ownership -- a lot that was not builda~le would be merged with the contiguous property and not considered a separate lot. Outlet A shared less than five feet of a common boundary with a back lot that was under common ownership until Holz~ove bought Outlot A in 2003. The planning department denied Holz~ove's building permit, claiming that Oudot A was not a separate, buildable lot under the 1980 merger provision. Holz~ove appealed that decision to the county board iof adjustment. He ar- gued that Outlet A and the back lot did not satisfy the definition of '~contigu- ous" because they shared less than five feet of a common boundary. Holzgrove further claimed that Outlet A should have been considered buildable under the 1980 grandfather clause. The board granted the building permit to Holzgrove, and the county ap- pealed. The lower court upheld the board's decision, and the county appealed again. DECISION:Affirmed. The appeals court upheld the board's decision granting a permit to Holz~ove. The county argued that Outlot A did not meet the definition of a "lot," which the ordinance defined as "one unit of a recorded plat or subdivision occupied or to be occupied by a building." As such, the county asserted that the grandfather clause did not cover Outlot A. Although the court noted that the county's argument had some merit, it found that such a strict interpretation of the ordinance would have made the grandfather clause meaningless. The purpose of the grandfather clause -- using the plain language standard -- was to make some substandard lots build- able; under the county's strict definition, the clause would apply only to lots that were akeady considered buildable. The county also argued that the board erred in not considering Outlot A and the back lot contiguous and, therefore, merged under the 1980 provision. The court a~eed with Holzgrove that the lots were not contiguous because they shared such a small common boundary. Further, the court noted that the county lacked evidence of the shared boundary while the lots were under common ownership; therefore, the merger provision was never triggered. see also: Frank's Nursery Sales Inc. v. Ciu of RosevilIe, 295 N.W. 2d 608 (1980). 176 ¢, 2006 Quinla. n Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For mere hiormation please call (617) 542-0048.