Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 6 1994 <br />TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 25, 1984 <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />BOOR 5 7 fA-CE 316 <br />FILE: <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: MODIFICATION TO THE <br />COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION <br />SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 83-24 TO <br />� REQUIRE ADDITIONAL <br />STREET PAVING <br />Robert M. Keatliig, CP <br />Planning & Development Director <br />FROM: Clare Z. Poupard,i. ;r REFERENCES: Co. S/D Ord. <br />Staff Planner DIS:CLARE <br />Itis requested that the following information be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting -on June 6, 1984. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />The attached analysis was undertaken at the request of the <br />Board of County Commissioners. The Board requested that the <br />Planning Department investigate the possibility of amending <br />the subdivision ordinance. The proposed amendment would <br />require that any new subdivision development be connected to a <br />paved road. If no paved roads abut a proposed subdivision, <br />the subdivision's developer would be responsible for extending <br />the nearest paved road to the development. The subdivision <br />ordinance currently requires that a new subdivision's internal <br />streets must be paved and that any streets which abut a new <br />development must be paved. However, streets which abut a <br />development must only be paved along the project's length. If <br />there are no paved streets surrounding this area, the develop- <br />er is not required to extend the pavement to the nearest paved <br />street. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: <br />The Planning Department has reviewed the proposed amendment in <br />the :Following manner. Staff reviewed information about the <br />number of unpaved roads in Indian River County and the direc- <br />tion which new residential development is taking. Staff also <br />considered alternatives to the proposed amendment. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners <br />consider this analysis and determine whether the Planning <br />Department should proceed with an amendment to the subdivision <br />ordinance and what form this amendment should take. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt this matter might very well <br />require a workshop meeting. He had a question re the <br />statement on page 7 of the 10 page staff analysis in <br />Paragraph V. DISADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED CHANGE, which reads <br />that "....no new subdivision has been developed, which did <br />have frontage on a paved road....." He asked if this <br />54 <br />