11/25/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

*Analysis According to may not waive the following: Section 11 of the subdivision ordinance, the Board requirements of the ordinance unless it finds all of "(1) The particular physical conditions, shape, or topography of the specific property involved would cause an undue hardship to the applicant if the strict letter of the ordinance is carried out; (2) The granting of the waiver will not cause injury to adjacent property or any natural resource; (3) The conditions upon which a request for waiver are based are unique to the property for which the waiver is sought and are " not generally applicable to other property in the adjacent areas and do not result from 'actions of the applicant; and (4) The waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance, the Indian River County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and this ordinance." Staff finds that the subject properties are a part of unique circumstances, wherein the County documented to a potential property purchaser that a newly split -off parcel was buildable and legal when in fact it was not. Furthermore, the County issued a building permit for the Binkley property. As such, -the County has helped to create a hardship. In regards to these two properties, the County has diligently applied the subdivision regulations concerning the number of parcels that may be created without platting. However, the County has not properly enforced its frontage requirement regulations and has, in fact, previously permitted development of one of the split -off lots. It is staff's opinion that the County cannot reasonably expect the owners of the subject properties to now fully comply with regula- tions that the County has previously "exempted" and failed to apply to one-half of the parcel split. Therefore, in the opinion of the Planning and Development Division and the County Attorney's Office, the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to waive the frontage requirements for the subject properties. The best alternative for the subject properties and other large parcels located along 62nd Drive is alternative #3, to plat a 60' wide right-of-way. Such platting would establish a right-of-way and a property owners' association responsible for maintaining the roadway (which is presently unmaintained and in poor condition). To help facilitate the possible future platting of a 60' wide right-of-way over the existing 40' wide 62nd Drive, the subject property owners could set back an additional 101. This would ensure conformance to front yard setback requirements if a road right-of-way is ever platted. Section 11 of the subdivision ordinance gives the Board the authority to attach conditions to a waiver to assure compliance with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance. Requiring the extra 10' setback from 62nd Drive would facilitate future compliance with frontage require- ments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant a waiver from the requirements of section 6(a)(3) of the subdivision ordinance as applied to the subject ..properties subject to the following condition: 1) such waiver shall not be effective for a subject property until such time that the owner has filed a covenant establishing a 30' building setback along his western property boundary. 25 BOOK FY�r OV 2 5 1986 K t• .