HO DECISION (201) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The parcel 1 easement will serve only one parcel, and MCSPO VII6(b) access standards do not technically apply. Fire district standards must still be met. No topography map is in the file, but the subject property is in a geologic slide hazard area, and slopes of 20% or more are assumed. Neighbors complain that the existing undeveloped easement cannot be constructed to standards, at least not without extensive cutting and filling, making slope stability an issue. Appellants point to finding 4 in P 99-1 to support their inadequate access contention: "A 30 foot wide easement already exists, however, due to topographic limitations it is unable to provide access." The supporting evidence for that comment is not apparent from the P 99-1 file. The MCSPO requires proof of access development to standard prior to issuance of building permits, not upon partitioning approval. Still, under MCCP rural development policy 9, a parcel cannot be approved as a dwelling site unless it is determined that there is adequate access to the parcel. An easement to parcel 1 exists. A roadway within the easement that meets fire district standards might be engineered, but there is no proof that engineering such access is feasible. While final engineering designs are not required, applicant must provide some proof that development standards can be met. Applicant has not met the burden of proving that there is adequate access to parcel 1. Parcel 2 access. Access for parcel 2 is proposed over 84W24C 900 and 84W24C 903, both in applicant's ownership. These lots are large, and applicant can be flexible when designing access over his own property. It is likely that grade, surface and other r'equirements can be met for parcel 2, and the application can be conditioned on meeting MCSPO and SSFD requirements. Only ~hree other parcels will share the access easement. MCZO 110.800 will be met. With conditions of approval requiring driveway permits and compliance with DPW and fire district regulations, the access portion of rural residential development policy 9 will be met for parcel 2. 12. MCZO 128.040 contains the following requirements for dwellings near resource zones: (a) Any new dwelling in an AR zone shall be required to maintain a special setback from any parcel in the EFU, SA, FT, or TC zones when necessary to minimize potential conflicts with farm or forest uses. A 100-foot setback is the usual standard adjacent to farm use and 200 feet is the standard adjacent to forest uses. (b) The owner of a proposed dwelling to be located within 500 feet of the EFU, SA, FT, TC zones shall be required to concur in the filing of the Declaratory Statement prescribed in the respective resource zone. 02-21 - ORDER -15 KOLOEN ~