Laserfiche WebLink
APR m 5 9994 � <br />B00W 92 vnr. 44 <br />*Proposed Emergency Ordinance <br />Based upon coordinated review with the County Attorney's Office, <br />planning staff proposes an amendment to the road frontage <br />requirement section of the LDRs [section 913.06(1)(c)] simply to <br />clarify some existing language. This proposed wording change would <br />preclude any interpretation of the referenced section in a manner <br />that would contradict the county's longstanding interpretation and <br />application of the road frontage requirement. In addition to <br />adoption of the emergency ordinance, it is staff's opinion that the <br />Board should direct staff to initiate a proper re -review of the <br />road frontage requirement. Such a re -review would allow the Board <br />to re -affirm the requirement and the requested emergency ordinance <br />in the future or to make modifications to the requirement. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: <br />1. Declare that an immediate emergency exists, that normal notice <br />requirements are waived and that enactment of the attached <br />ordinance is necessary to. ensure continued equitable and <br />consistent application of a long-standing county regulation <br />and policy. - <br />2. Adopt the attached ordinance. <br />3. Direct staff to initiate review of the county's road frontage <br />requirement during the next round of land development <br />regulation (LDR) amendments. <br />Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this is not a <br />proposal for a new restriction or a change in an existing <br />restriction. The purpose of this emergency ordinance is to clarify <br />the road frontage requirement by rewording that section of the <br />Code. Any action taken by the Board at today's meeting will not <br />affect the pending appeal. If this emergency ordinance is not <br />adopted, however, there is a possibility the long-standing frontage <br />requirement will be eliminated. <br />Commissioner Adams asked, and Attorney Vitunac advised, that <br />emergency ordinances are as legally binding as other ordinances. <br />He confirmed that the proposed emergency ordinance would not affect <br />the pending appeal of Mr. Barkett's clients. <br />Commissioner Macht asked about invoking the pending ordinance <br />doctrine, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it is preferable to <br />adopt an emergency ordinance. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />20 <br />I <br />