2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 1986 BOOK 6 SAGE 519 notifying the County constitute violations of Section 23(h)(2)(a) and (b) of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances (then in effect). These violations committed by Mary K. Berlin, owner of the - project when site plan approval was obtained, would have served to suspend all zoning and site plan approvals for the project, had the Planning Department been aware of these actions. The reason why Parris and Springer were not ordered to formally transfer site plan approval from Mary K. Berlin to themselves was that the Planning Department which imple- ments and enforces this section of the code was unaware of the transaction. Since it is the applicant's responsibility to be aware of the law and to meet ordinance requirements, it is the staff's position that Mary K. Berlin violated the site plan ordinance. CONCLUSION: The County acted properly in the issuance of building permits for the project. 2. The issue of the County failing to require the applicant to obtain a DER Stormwater Management permit prior to release of the site plan was addressed in detail in the December 19, 1985 letter from Robert Keating to Joseph Berlin. Basically, that letter states that the applicant's engineer/agent failed to identify DER as an agency having permit jurisdiction over the project. Therefore, the County staff assumed that the applicant had obtained an exemption from DER, and the site plan was approved based upon the submittal of inaccurate information by the applicant's agent. CONCLUSION: Failure of County to require evidence of DER permit was the result of incorrect information having been submitted by the applicant's engineer. 3. As to the question of why Parris and Springer were allowed to subdivide the center after the center was constructed, there is a simple answer. Nothing in the County's ordinances prevent the subdivision of land, even land on which struc- tures have already been built, into lots as long as all applicable County standards are met in the subdivision of this land. In fact, the County's Subdivision and Platting ordinance, Section B of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, contains a definition of land condominium which does not differentiate between residential and commer- cial nor between developed or undeveloped land. In the case of the Old Dixie Shopping Center, application for subdivision of the property was not made until after certifi- cates of occupancy had been i.ssued for the center. As submitted, the subdivision plat depicted lot lines which conformed to the unit lines delineated in the site plan for the center. Although the walls separating units in the center were constructed according to interior wall standards because the center was approved as a rental project, conver- sion to a facility where each unit is on a separate lot could, in certain cases, require separation of the units by a firewall. The applicant was informed of the firewall requirement at the initial phase of the platting process. Because the applicant was unsure of the size of units to be sold, in particular whether several units as depicted on the floor plan of the center's site plan would be sold together to form larger spaces, the staff determined that firewalls would not be 30