10/9/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 0 CT 91985 8001 .62 PAGE -371 Although Mr. Metz addresses all four of these criteria in his completed application (attachment #1), conditions 11 3, and 4 are not satisfied by Mr. Metz's request or situation. The physical shape and physical condition of Mr. Metz's 10 acre tract is similar to other 10 acre tracts in the County that have been platted in accordance with the provisions of the** subdivision and platting ordinance. As staff informed Mr. Metz subsequent to his pre -application conference, the parcel could legally be split once into two parcels without obtaining subdivision approval as long as all zoning requirements are met. Mr. Metz has split the parcel into three parcels mainly for tax purposes and financial reasons. The conditions upon which the waiver request is based are not unique but are, in fact, common. The applicant has created his. own hardship by dividing his property into three parcels without properly platting. In this case, granting the waiver would not be consistent with the subdivision ordinance because the waiver would circumvent the ordinance. In essence, Mr. Metz is actually requesting a full exemption of the subdivision ordinance for reasons that the ordinance does not now recognize as warranting an:exemption. Mr. Metz's proposed condition to restrict the eight acre back parcel as unbuildable until properly platted still violates the three parcel threshold set forth in the County's definition of a subdivision. This threshold is based on the State's definition of a subdivision as a three parcel division of land (Chapter 177 F.S.). Past history and current land ownership patterns in the County clearly show that the subdivision ordinance is needed to control the division of land and number of parcels created. Granting this request would, in effect, arbitrarily raise the threshold of what constitutes a subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to waive the application of subdivision ordinance requirements from the Metz property. Planner Stan Boling presented staff recommendation for denial of this request for exemption from certain requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Referring to a map of the area, Mr. Boling advised that one solution would be to recombine the lots in such a way as to make 2 parcels out of the 3, which was the understanding that we had after the pre -application conference. A second alternative to rectify the situation is to plat the subdivision by coming in off of 37th Street. He explained that a lot in a new subdivision cannot have direct access onto a secondary collector and that 37th Street (Barber Avenue) is designed as a secondary collector. What Mr. Metz would have to do is establish a paved road and configure the road in such a way that all three parcels created in there have frontage on a 14 � r �