4/5/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r APR - 5199 BOOK 92 WAGE 42 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DI N HEAD CONCURRENCE: .0, P_/ff i R5bert'M. Keati g, JAICP Community D,evveelopmOnt D ctor FROM: Stan Boling; -AICP Planning Director DATE: March 30, 1994 SUBJECT: Emergency Ordinance to Make a Clarification Change to the Road Frontage Requirement of the County's. Subdivision Ordinance It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 5, 1994. BACKGROUND: •Need for Emergency Action For over 20 years, the county has required that newly created lots resulting from lot splits have frontage on a public road right-of- way or a private platted road right-of-way. This road frontage requirement is similar to requirements of other counties in central Florida. Over the years, this requirement has been applied to hundreds of lot splits and proposed lot splits throughout the county. Planning staff estimates that this requirement is applied to lot split proposals on an average of 10-20 times a month. Therefore, any changes to this requirement would have a significant impact on a large number of inquiries and proposals and would be a major departure from a 20 year old standard. Recently, the wording of this requirement was challenged via an appeal of staff's interpretation of the LDRs. The essence of the appeal is that the present wording of the LDRs does not require lots to have road frontage. Staff will soon be processing this appeal through the normal appeal process. Both the County Planning Division and the County Attorney's Office recognize that the current wording could be interpreted contrary to the clear intent of the county's road frontage policy. Thus, it is staff's opinion that the road frontage LDR section needs to be clarified. However, it is also staff's opinion that, if the appeal is upheld and staff's interpretation is overturned, the long-standing road frontage requirement will for all practical purposes be struck -down and voided unless the county takes emergency action or goes through the lengthy LDR amendment process. In staff's opinion, the potential that this important and often applied requirement could be voided without a full LDR amendment review poses a danger. This danger can be avoided by passing an emergency ordinance, as provided by.Florida Statutes Chapter 125.66(3), to clarify the LDR section now being contested by the appeal. 18