PLA25-055 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requirements. But, since this proposal would result in the consolidation of 2 parcels into a singular parcel, the number of parcels would be reduced, making it more difficult for the parcel to qualify for a template test dwelling. Overall, the proposed property line adjustment would not cause tax lot 100 to qualify for a dwelling and instead would increase the difficulty of it from happening. Therefore, the criterion is met. b. Except as provided in subsection (B)(2)(c) of this section, a lot or parcel that is reduced will be better suited for management as part of a commercial forest. c. A lot or parcel may be reduced to the minimum size necessary for the use if the lot or parcel: i. Was approved as a non-farm or non-forest parcel; or ii. Is occupied by an approved non-farm or non-forest dwelling; or iii. More than half of the parcel is occupied by a use in MCC 17.138.020 or 17.138.040 other than a dwelling or farm or forest use; or iv. The lot or parcel is occupied by a dwelling established before January 1, 1994. Only one parcel involved in the proposal will be decreasing in size (other than the parcel being consolidated with another parcel). The reduction in size of that parcel will result in a transfer of land that is separated from the majority of the parcel by the Neal Rd right-of-way and is not being used as part of any forest operation with the rest of the parcel. As such, the reduction in size will not have any measurable impact on the ability of the parcel to be managed as part of a commercial forest. Therefore, the criteria are met. d. A property line adjustment may not be used to: i. Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that, before the relocation or elimination of the common property line, is smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone and contains an existing dwelling or is approved for the construction of a dwelling, if the abutting vacant tract would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant tract for a dwelling; The only legal parcel involved in the proposal with an existing dwelling is tax lot 300. Tax lot 300 is increasing in size while the vacant parcels are mostly decreasing in overall size. Since no parcel with an existing dwelling will be made smaller by this proposal, this criterion is met. ii. Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that contains an existing dwelling or is approved for construction of a dwelling to a size smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size, if the abutting vacant tract would be increased to a size as large as or larger that the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant tract for a dwelling; The only legal parcel involved in the proposal with an existing dwelling is tax lot 300. Tax lot 300 is increasing in size while the vacant parcels are mostly decreasing in overall size. Since no parcel with an existing dwelling will be made smaller by this proposal, this criterion is met iii. Allow an area of land used to qualify a tract for a dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify another tract for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage standard; or The existing dwellings within the subject area were constructed prior to the adoption of planning and zoning ordinance, so they did not require an acreage standard for their placement. The vacant parcels were not part of an application to qualify a parcel for a dwelling based on an acreage standard. Therefore, the criterion is met. iv. Adjust a property line that resulted from a subdivision or partition authorized by a Measure 49 waiver so that any lawfully established unit of land affected by the property line adjustment is larger than the size granted by the waiver. None of the parcels involved in this proposal were subject to a claim under Measure 37 or Measure 49. Therefore the criterion is met.