1/7/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

utilities services problems and prohibits the creation of lots that cannot be properly served with future services (eg. water and wastewater utilities). •Variance Review and Consideration Section 913.11 of the subdivision ordinance gives the Board clear guidance in its review and consideration of a variance request. The Board shall not approve a variance unless it finds all of the following: "(A) 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 land development regulation is carried out; (B) The granting of the variance will not cause injury to adjacent property or any natural resource; (C) The conditions upon which a request for ,variance are based are unique to the property for which the waiver is sought and are not generally applicable to other property in the adjacent area and do not result from actions of the applicant; and (D) The variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Indian River County land development regulations, the Indian River County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and this Chapter. If the board approves a variance, it may attach any such conditions to the variance as will assure that the variance will not result in noncompliance with the intent and purpose of this Chapter. Violation of any such condition shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter." It is staff's position that none of these criteria is satisfied by the request. (A) The physical shape and condition of the property does not warrant the granting of a variance. The subject property is of a size and shape that lends itself to development if developed in conjunction with the parent tract or other existing "undeveloped" tracts to the south or west of the site. The location of the subject portion of the parent tract is no cause for granting the requested variance since the location and "land -locked" situation was created by the applicant and is the very situation the subdivision ordinance road frontage requirement prohibits. (B) Granting the variance could preclude proper subdivision of the subject property and adjacent areas, and would simply add another nonconforming parcel to an existing nonconforming subdivision in the area (the six metes and bounds parcels immediately north of the subject site). Given the RS -3 zoning and potential development in the area, future development of larger parcels, such as the subject ±4 acre parcel, should be accommodated by continued application and enforcement of the frontage requirement. (C) The conditions and circumstances involving the subject property are not unique. There are hundreds of larger, undeveloped metes and bounds properties throughout the county which are zoned for residential development. The road frontage requirements have been applied to many Properties throughout the county. There is no Justification for distinguishing the subject parcel from hundreds of parcels throughout the county. Such parcels 37 LIJAM 07 1992