DCPREZ-0000-07261 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A strict interpretation of the current town plan language would seem to imply that the Seston's proposal exceeds the town's density policy; however, the town asserts that it has always treated such land divisions differently. The County Zoning and Natural Resources Committee did not address this issue when it approved Petition#7178, which created the second split on the farm. For their part, the Sestons claim they did not originally realize that the separation of 11.5 acres resulting from CSM 8813 would require the creation of a separate lot that might count against their total number of permitted lots. B. Conclusions There are essentially four options the committee should consider: 1. The ZNR could accept the Town's interpretation of its land use plan regarding separation of existing farm buildings from the remainder of the farm. This may set a precedent for similar cases that may come up in the near future. 2. The Town could seek to amend its land use plan to clarify its policy on the separation of farm buildings with regards to permitted lot density. This should probably be done in any case, but may take several months at the very least. 3. The Sestons could seek to reconfigure lot lines to provide a connection of at least 66 feet in width between the vacant 11.5 acre lot created by CSM 8954 and the balance of the farm. The 11.5 acres could then be rezoned to A-1(ex), potentially freeing up a split. The committee should consult with the County Plat Review Officer about the feasibility or advisability of this approach. The location of the lots and the presence of buildings already on the site may make this option impossible in any event. 4. If the petition is denied, the Sestons would have to sell the farm buildings and the farmland together as one unit. If the town plan is amended and adopted by the county in the interim, the Sestons could reapply to separate the farm buildings twelve months after the current petition was denied. 3