5/24/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MAY 2 419-9.4 BOOK 92 PACE 523 (C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 by any means where a resulting lot has frontage on: a dedicated public right-of- way, private platted right-of-way (street), or a roadway - historically and currently maintained- by the county, as referenced on the county road grading map, less than: 1. Sixty (60) continuous feet... 2. The minimum lot width..." •Interpreting the Wording It is staff's position that paragraph "(C)" must be read in its entirety and that the words "less than" apply to each of the three roadway types referenced prior to the words "less than". Thus, in staff's opinion, the logical reading of this section is as follows: (1) It is unlawful for any person to: (A) Create a subdivision without first complying with the provisions of this chapter... (B) Divide property.... unless each of the resulting parcels has at least the minimum area... (C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 ... where a resulting lot: 1. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a dedicated public right-of-way, or 2. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a private platted right-of-way (street), or 3. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a roadway historically and currently maintained by the county as referenced on the county road grading map. In its entirety, the wording of section 913.06(1) implies that there are only three types of road rights-of-way upon which a newly created lot may front. Thus, under this reading, it is staff's opinion that an affirmative answer to "(C)1." -and "(C)2." and "(C)3.11, as paraphrased above, would indicate that a lot split has no road right-of-way frontage and, therefore, would be unlawful. Therefore, sufficient frontage on either a public road right-of- way, or a private platted right-of-way, or a county maintained road is a pre -requisite for a lawful lot split. It is the opinion of the appellant that paragraph "(C)" does not need to be read in its entirety. According to the appellant, one need only read as- far as the first portion of paragraph "(C)" to conclude that the minimum frontage requirements apply only in circumstances where a parcel fronts on a public road right-of-way, or a private platted right-of-way, or a county maintained road. Thus, under the appellant's reading, the road frontage requirement simply does not apply if a road does not fit into one of these categories, as is the case with Hedden Place. •Reviewing the Appeal Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal. Under 902.07, the Board'of County Commissioners is to make findings in the following four areas: 78 M M -