Laserfiche WebLink
BRUCE BARKETT'S APPEAL OF INTERPRETATION OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE <br />ROAD R/W FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94: <br />TO: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DI <br />ISI HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />Robert M. e t g, <br />Community Deveel�ljjopm Director <br />FROM: Stan Boling,/AICP <br />Planning Director <br />DATE: May 18, 1994 <br />SUBJECT: Bruce Barkett's Appeal of a Planning and Zoning <br />Commission's Decision on an Interpretation of the <br />Subdivision Ordinance Road Right -of -Way Frontage <br />Requirement <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular <br />meeting of May 24, 1994. <br />BACKGROUND: <br />Recently, on behalf of property owner Robert VanVorst, attorney <br />Bruce Barkett requested planning staff's interpretation of the <br />county's road frontage requirement as applied to his client's <br />parcel (see attachment #1). The subject parcel is located on <br />Hedden Place (see attachment #2), and is part of an older, <br />unplatted "subdivision" that has no platted road rights-of-way or <br />easements. Also, it is staff's understanding that there is no <br />official organization (e.g. property owners association) <br />responsible for maintaining Hedden Place. <br />County planning staff's interpretation of the LDRs is that <br />subdivision ordinance section 913.06(1) prohibits creation of <br />parcels that have no frontage on either a dedicated public road <br />right-of-way, or a private platted road right-of-way, or a roadway <br />historically and currently maintained by the county (see attachment <br />#3). Since Hedden Place is not a dedicated or county -maintained <br />right-of-way, staff's position is that Mr. VanVorst I s- parcel (which <br />fronts only on Hadden Place) cannot be further divided without the <br />platting of Hedden Place. <br />On behalf of his client, Mr. Barkett appealed staff's <br />interpretation and has stated that "...staff is in error based upon <br />the plain meaning of the words used in the applicable sections of <br />the LDRs, specifically sections 912.06(3)(c) and 913.06(1)(c)" [see <br />attachment #4]. This appeal was considered by the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission at its April 28, 1994 meeting. At that meeting, <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 on a motion to <br />---omerturn staff's interpretation and grant the appeal. Since four <br />' S <br />MAY 2 4 1994 Boor. 92 PACE 50 <br />