Laserfiche WebLink
. , �� �' � <br /> lob. Subeecdon 'A`of thl� ordlnance rofers to merpers of subetandard � <br /> Ids!ha!do not satisty the minimum bt aree or width requknrtier�ts of a <br /> mne in which thsy aro bc�ted and aro convayed and heid as�s��mrate <br /> l01 in aeparate ownerahip a8 of Msrch 20, 19H2, but are subeequenqy <br /> merged wRh contiguout lots af the sam0 pwnerehip. (Exhibk 1.EMC) <br /> 2. In Oetober, 19�3,the eetate of Tlames 5keppe disMbuted to Georpette <br /> Westleke end her hwband, Fronk B.We�tlake, tiGe fc ttre subject <br /> ProPeRY. The WeeHakea owned the ad�cent end ad1��0 P�PertY of <br /> the aubject ProPerty. '11�eee propeAie�wero subsequenty trensferred to <br /> Helen Weatlake. (Exhi:+it 3, pepe 2, Gelloway teatimony) <br /> 3. In Aupu�t, 1978,the Cfty of Everoft Board of Adjuatrner�t held e he�� <br /> fc determine whelher a vatiance should be prar�ted to Hden Westlake to <br /> eNow Rx�n�truction oF a single-family reaidence on the subjeet <br /> p'oPsrty- The adjoininp lot held by Ms.Westleke had bean previously <br /> developed as a single-famiy►e�idence. (C;alloway testimony) <br /> 4. The Westlake variance was sought because tha Appellant in 1978 had <br /> made an oRer to purchaae the Weatlake property, but wou�d ony <br /> Pu^rhase t►►e p^oPeM H k consfsted of two eepenate bis. The Boerd of <br /> Adjustment�sobsequeni b a fomiel heednp. delertnh�ed H�et the lot <br /> quallfied for e variarwe. The Board furthar detertNned that 1he bt wes <br /> created prior b 1943, and was 'grandfatherod'and not subjot*ta fhe <br /> Everet!2oninp Cade ihet was enadrd in 1958. An a aonditlon for the <br /> varianoe, a requirement was that r duilding Pem�it must be fswed within <br /> one year irom the dete of the orc'ar. (OaAoway bs�timony) <br /> 5. The City isaued a Bupding Pertnit for the Ipt fi pc{ot�r� �879. Although <br /> improvemerda were made to the subject P�P�Y, it wec never <br /> developed because of finendal limitadons and conditionc d tho <br /> community (Gallowey tealfrrpny) <br /> E. The App�icant sdd the adjoining lot In September 1997,the Appellent. <br /> through the Applicant. appGed for a non-conforminp lot csAMcatlon for <br /> the subjed poperty. The Clty denied ihe applicatbn cordend�ng thet the <br /> par�ei�eM's failure to budd on the subjed P�oPertY�basQuent to fhe <br /> 1 s7s aPproval. eife�tivel�,a�min�tod tha vsriance. Furtnsr, fF,s c.ity <br /> contended that the lot was st1A paA of the merged lot, even tliouph the <br /> adjofn(ng portion of the merged lot had been sold in 1988, (Galloway <br /> testimony) <br /> 3 <br /> �4 <br /> L�•;y e6ed 'EL�O� 68•eZ-�eH '•lvE4 EL9 5Z4 :• • :/�g ;ueg <br />