11/25/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 2 5 1986 BOOK 4 Background and Conditions: Mr. N.D. Hedin and Mr. John Binkley, separate owners of two contiguous parcels located on 62nd Drive (Charlotte Avenue), are requesting a waiver from section 6(a)(3) of the subdivision ordinance so as to make their parcels buildable. Prior to the adoption of the new subdivision ordinance (July 20, 1983),the two parcels were one parent parcel measuring 400' x 145' owned by Jerry Becktold. On December 21, 1983 Mr. John Binkley, interested in purchasing the north 200' of the parent parcel, received a letter from a County Code Enforcement Officer stating that a 200' "split -off" from the parent parcel was legal and buildable. Relying on the letter, Mr. Binkley purchased the north half of the parent parcel and obtained a building permit for a house. No construction ever commenced.and the building permit is no longer valid. In 1985 Mr. & Mrs. N.D. Hedin purchased the south 200" of the parent parcel on the assumption that if the other half of the parcel split was buildable, their half would also be buildable. In March of 1986, Mr. Hedin applied for a building permit and was informed that his parcel was not buildable pursuant to section 6(a)(3) of the subdivision ordinance. In effect, the section states that it is unlawful to divide property by any means where the resulting parcels have inadequate frontage on a dedicated road right-of-way (see attachment #4). Section 29(b) of the zoning code similarly states that in such situations where parcels have been created without adequate road right-of-way frontage, no building permit can be issued. Since the Hedin and Binkley properties had been divided up with neither having any frontage on a dedicated road right-of-way (62nd Drive is actually a driveway located within a privately owned 40" parcel that is used by all surrounding property owners; it is not dedicated and it is neither a right-of-way nor an easement), the parcel split is illegal and neither parcel is buildable. The 1983 letter from the Code Enforcement Officer was in error as it did not take into account the road frontage requirements. ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS: *Alternatives The Binkley and Hedin properties can be made to conform to the subdivision ordinance and zoning code, and thus be made buildable, by one of four means: 1) re -combine the two parcels back into the parent parcel configuration, thus rendering a single buildable parcel; 2) purchase adjoining property that already has sufficient frontage on an existing road right-of-way. 3) plat to County standards a road right-of-way over 62nd Drive; 4) obtain from the Board of County Commissioners a waiver from the subdivision ordinance road frontage requirement. Alternatives 2 and 3 are not feasible at this time because: a) the properties that would need to be acquired to render frontage on an existing road right-of-way are unavail- able; and b) platting a 60" wide private road right-of-way along 62nd Drive would require dedications some current.owners are unwilling to make. Alternative 1 in this case is not equitable in that a documented County determination was relied upon for purchase and use of two parcels. Alternative 4 is being pursued by the applicants.. 24