Laserfiche WebLink
- M <br />•Effect of Emergency Action <br />By passing the emergency ordinance, the Board can guarantee that <br />the appeal will be strictly limited to the applicant's case and <br />that the road frontage requirement will remain unchanged unless and <br />until the requirement is fully reviewed via the LDR amendment <br />process. Staff requests that the Board now consider adoption of <br />the proposed emergency ordinance. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />•Lot Split Regulations <br />For many years, county regulations have allowed one-time lot and <br />parcel splits without requiring subdivision approval and platting. <br />However, such splits are allowed only under the following three <br />conditions: <br />1. That the parcel being split has not been split and has not <br />been the result of a split since July, 1983. (Note: if a <br />split has occurred since July 1983, then additional parcels <br />can be created only through subdivision and plat approval.) <br />2. That the resulting parcels meet all applicable zoning district <br />lot size and dimension criteria. <br />3. That each resulting parcel have a minimum amount of frontage <br />on: <br />a. a public (county) road right-of-way; or <br />b. a private platted road right-of-way; or <br />ce a roadway historically and currently maintained by the <br />county. <br />Condition #3, which is the road frontage requirement, is being <br />challenged. In addition to having been in the county's code for 20 <br />years, this road frontage requirement has been upheld by the county <br />on the two occasions that the Board has considered requests for <br />variances from the requirement. In both cases, the Mt. Pleasant <br />case in 1988 and the Scott Ketchum case in 1992, the Board upheld <br />the road frontage requirement by denying variances from the <br />requirement. <br />The current wording in the road frontage LDR section is written in <br />a manner that tries to explain negative (prohibited) actions with <br />positive statements. This manner of wording is generally used in <br />the-LDRs to avoid the use of double negatives. As asserted by the <br />applicant, the manner of wording could be interpreted in a way that <br />renders the requirement meaningless. <br />*Request for Emergency Action <br />Because the county has had a road. frontage requirement for 20 <br />years, has consistently applied the requirement to hundreds of <br />properties, and is continuously called -upon to review proposals and <br />circumstances to which the requirement applies, emergency action is <br />needed to ensure that the requirement is maintained unless it is <br />amended via a thorough review process. Therefore, it is staff's <br />opinion that an immediate emergency exists that warrants emergency <br />action by the Board. Under Florida Statutes 125.66(3), the Board <br />may adopt the proposed emergency ordinance by a four-fifths <br />majority vote. <br />19 BOOK 92 FKH 43 <br />�� <br />