3/29/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

adjacent areas and do not result from actions of the appli- cant; 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."' It is staff's analysis that none of these criteria are satisfied by the request. 1. The physical condition, shape, or topography of the subject property causes no hardship on the owner's ability to pro- perly develop the property under the Ord. 83-24 regulations. The property is similar to the adjacent 10 acre tract which was properly subdivided a few years ago and is now known as "Boxwood Estates". The owner could plat one to three lots on the subject piece of property (this would involve extending 14th Street S.W. and County water lines), or plat the subject parcel along with other adjacent properties. 2. Granting the waiver could preclude proper future subdivision of the adjacent area. Waiving the subdivision' requirements could result in: problems in extending 14th Street S.W. to established traffic circulation system; problems in extending County water lines; obstructing the continuation of a drainage the established road right-of-way system; future inequity problems regarding paving roadways or roadway extentions; and continue the outfall via of adjacent problems with future alignment of a north/south road parallel to 16th Court S.W. (could preclude continuation of the established roadway pattern). All of these problems could cause injury to adjacent prop- erties due to obstruction of the proper extension of infrastructure. 3. The condition(s) of the property are not unique. Dozens of other properties within the Vero Beach Suburban Acres illegal subdivision share similar or exact circumstances. Further- more, illegal subdivision splits occur from time to time throughout the County. The conditions of the subject proper- ty are similar to many other properties, and similar to any number of illegal splits. 4. The request is inconsistent with Ord. 83-24 and the Compre- hensive Plan. First, the request is to make Ord. 83-24 ineffective and useless in regards to fulfilling its primary objective, which is to "...require the harmonious and orderly development of land...(section 4)". The request is broad, taking issue with the entire ordinance and the County's authority to require proper subdivision and platting. Second, the request is inconsistent with the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policy D.1. which states: "Proposals for residential developments shall comple- ment existing residential patterns and provide adequate neighborhood facilities [p. 17]". The analysis under point (2) above demonstrates that the County can only ensure development that complements existing patterns (road, drainage layout) and provide adequate facilities (infrastructure and drainage) by applying the Ordinance 83-24 regulations. MAR 2 9 M8 24 BOOK 71 PAGE 381