2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

QUESTION: WHY DID THE COUNTY NOT REQUIRE DER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMITS? ANSWER; The County ASSUMED that the engineer had acquired a permit COMMENT: THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ASSUMPTIONS. THE COUNTY REQUIRES PERMITS FROM ALL RELATED BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE LAW STATES THAT CONSTRUCTION CANNOT COMMENCE WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE NOW HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS CHOSEN TO TOTALLY DISREGARD STATE LAW AND BRUSH OFF THEIR RESPONSIB+ ILITY BY STATING THAT THEY ASSUMED THE ENGINEER HAD OBTAINED A PERMIT. QUESTION: WHY WERE PARRIS AND SPRINGER ALLOWED TO SUBDIVIDE THE CENTER AFTER THE CENTER WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIREWALLS HAVING BEEN INSTALLED BETWEEN UNITS CONSTITUTING SEPERATE LOTS? ANSWER: Nothing in the County's ordinances prevent the subdivision of land, even land on which structures 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 Indian River County C19de of LAWS AND Ordinances, contains a definition of land condominium which does not differentiate between residential and commercial nor between developed or undeveloped land. COMMENT: I AGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT. THE COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION & PLATTING ORDINANCE READS THUS: "LAND CONDOMINIUM... THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDOMINIUM LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE OWNERSHIP OF WHICH GRANTS THE OWNER THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE AND _ ENJOY A PARTICULAR AREAOF LAND TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS INCLUDING PAGE III •' Y BUT NOT LIMITED TO TOWNHOUSES, ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT, ETC EX- CLUDING PARKING AREAS, BOAT DOCKS, AND OTHER SIMILAR USE AREAS." Ir ANSWER CONTINUES...In the case of the Old Dixie Shopping Center, application for subdivision of the property was not made until after certificates of occupancy had been issued for the center..As sub- mitted, the subdivision plat depicted lot lines which conformed with the unit lines delineated in the site plan for the center. Although the walls seperating units in the Center were constructed according to interior wall standards because the center was approved as a rental project, conversion to a facility where each unit is on a seperate lot could, in certain cases, require seperation of the units by a fire wall. COMMENT: IF EACH UNIT IS ON A SEPERATE LOT, THEN WHY WERE WALLS NOT REQUIRED BETWEEN EACH LOT? YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THIS WAS A LAND CONDOMINIUM AND WALLS BETWEEN UNITS ON SEPERATE LOTS CANNOT BE OMITTED, CUT OR OTHERWISE PENETRATED. ANSWER CONTINUES:... 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 part- icular 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 required to be installed along proposed lot lines prior to final plat approval. However the applicant was informed that installation of firewalls may be required prior to occupancy of°units. The County Attorney's Office approved this procedure. COMMENT ... WHEN THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL, IT INDICATED SEPERATE UNITS. LOTS WERE SOLD OFF ON THE BASIS OF THESUBDIVISION PLAT. AT THE TIME THE PLAT WAS APPROVED, THE WALLS SHOULD HAVE ALL BEEN IN PLACE. BW WHAT STATUTE DID THE STAFF OBTAIN THE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT INCOMPLETE BUILDINGS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. WHEN THE PLAT WAS APPROVED EACH UNIT SIZE WAS RECORDED BY FEET. ACTUALLY, ALL THESE UNITS DID NOT EXIST AND STILL DO NOT. A RESUBDIVISION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO..COMBINE TWO OR MORE UNITS.* 35 BOOK -3 F.nr 5°x'4