5/24/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ M traffic on sub -standard roads to avoid creating de facto substandard subdivisions that could require complicated and costly retro fitted improvements.to solve maintenance, traffic, drainage, and utilities problems. The degree of difficulty in addressing development problems "after -the -fact" increases with the number of lots and lot owners involved. The road frontage requirement reasonably regulates such increases. Over the years, the road frontage 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, the requirement has served and continues to serve as an important regulatory tool to ensure that newly created lots and parcels have direct access to dedicated, maintained road rights-of- way that are part of a coordinated roadway system. •LDR Road Frontage Requirement Wording This appeal is being reviewed. under the LDRs in effect at the time of the appeal. The LDR in question is section 913.06(1) of the subdivision ordinance, a regulation which is essentially repeated in LDR section 912-.06(3)(e) of the single family development ordinance (see attachment #6). It should be noted, however, that on April 5, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners unanimously adopted an emergency ordinance to clarify the LDR road frontage wording (see attachment #7). At the same meeting, the Board directed staff to review the road frontage LDR requirement through the normal LDR amendment process. Staff is initiating this review as part of the next, round of LDR amendments. The Board adopted the emergency ordinance to ensure that the results of the Board's full consideration of the road frontage issue, rather than the outcome of the appeal, would apply to other lot split proposals. Because of the emergency ordinance action of the Board, this appeal is now an isolated case. Even though the emergency ordinance limits the effect of any decision made in this case, the issue is still restricted to the question of the wording of the county's land development regulations. While the applicant's purpose is to obtain the right to split a specific parcel, the issue before the Board does not involve the referenced parcel or the characteristics of that parcel. Instead, the issue is narrowly.drawn and limited to the specific interpretation or meaning of LDR section 913.06(1) and the applicability of that provision to any parcel in the county. The LDR wording which is the subject of this appeal is written as a list of unlawful, prohibited activities. Each prohibited item within this list [paragraphs (A), (B), (C)] is itself a paragraph which may address negative or prohibited activities. To avoid a wording construction that would use double negatives, section 913.06(1) was constructed so as to provide a list of standards or requirements that must be satisfied. In condensed form, section 913.06(1) is worded as follows: "Section 913.06. Compliance required; exceptions (1) Unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful and subject to the penalties provided herein for any person to: (A) Create a subdivision without first complying with the provisions of this chapter... (B) Divide property by any means for the purpose of sale or transfer of title unless each of the resulting parcels has at least the minimum area and width requirements... MAY 2 4199477 GOOK U Fa�GE 522