Laserfiche WebLink
Franklin* The property extends considerably A. <br /> into what would be the extension of <br /> that right -of -way. To Make the <br /> right -of -way and street development <br /> work, i r. Seaton and I have talked <br /> about working with anon Prouty, the <br /> owner of the pr to the north, <br /> to properly divide the <br /> responsibilities for right -of -way <br /> and development of the street. <br /> Sisal You indicated RS zoning. What <br /> concerns me is that you're thinking <br /> that you would than have two (2) <br /> lots on which to build. <br /> Beaton' The property immediately to the asst <br /> is RL. The property just to the <br /> north, the Prouty property, is RR. <br /> We propose am zoning for our <br /> property also to be compatible with <br /> ,b- what's next door. We only want to <br /> build ono house. There may be two <br /> (2) lots there. Our intontiaikis to <br /> just leave that as one 1r iarger <br /> parcel, allow the zoning to move <br /> forward, and build one house within <br /> three (3) or four (A) years. <br /> Sisk: my concern is that the memo that was <br /> circulated indicates an RE zoning <br /> would only allow you one (1) house <br /> and one (1) lot. Z don't rant you <br /> to be tilled. <br /> Franklin' Assuming the worst case scenario on <br /> the right -of -way division, that's <br /> because the right -of --way goes right <br /> through the top part of the <br /> property. Worst case scenario, if <br /> that right -of -way can't be worked <br /> out with the property owner to the <br /> north, then limited capacity, one <br /> (1) lot. If he can work out <br /> something with the property to the <br /> north, move the right -of -way or <br /> divide it diffe:-•ntly, than two (2) <br /> lots are possible. <br /> Seaton: We think wt. have general agreement <br /> with Mir. Prouty to acve the right- <br /> of -way onto his property, which <br /> 4 <br />