Grandpa

Image via Wikipedia

I was out of town on business a couple of weeks ago when the Planning Commission held their meeting. Since then I have talked with three folks who attended the meeting (all seats were filled in the Town Hall) and I'll give you a quick recap of their recollections.

A brief review prior to the summary...there has been a small but vocal group of individuals who have been pushing for a change to our City Code requirement of 15,000 sq feet for a building lot.  Ray Staton and Alderman Mary Hoy have been the main protagonists/antagonists (See post Nov 15, "Mary says "turn out with a crowd!!!) .  Ray has a personal ax to grind because of his previous situation on his home, which he eventually fixed by acquiring land to make his property conform to code.  It also just so happens he was campaign treasurer for Hoy's run for alderman.  Ana Royal, Ray's significant other, works with the Cone Team...the Cone Team ran into a similar issue with a non-conforming lot/home sale on a property just off of Wayland.  Got it?

The argument for "grandfathering" non-conforming lots/homes is the "what if it burns down theory", the notion that if such a home burned down or was destroyed by a tornado, the homeowners would not be able to rebuild their home.  Technically that notion is false in that there is a process via Building Permit/Plans Review then BZA where a home could be rebuilt.  How many lots/homes are we talking about?  Nobody really knows, but collective wisdom has it at a very small number, possibly 7 to 10 out of the 750 plus homes on the Lake.  The reason it isn't known exactly is it would require a survey of each property to know that #.  (Do you have a stake survey for your property?  I don't and that was really dumb...won't make that mistake again.)  Still with me?

Meeting Summary:
The City Attorney believes language in the City Code may address some of the issues noted above.  (See City Code section 405.300 and succeeding lines)
http://codes.sullivanpublications.com/weatherbylake-slp/
The Planning Commission took no formal action other than the City Attorney will draft language and or recommendations that might address the issue for consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting.  No date has been set.