8/15/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agreement with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, which has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. 20. Dock Rental Restrictions. These restrictions are in accordance with a Code Enforcement Board determination regarding accessory use vs. commercial use of single family docks. Basically, the Code Enforcement Board found that rental of dock space on a single family lot constitutes an illegal accessory use. The proposed changes will amend the LDRs to incorporate that ruling. This amendment will not change the county's regulations; instead, it will merely codify an existing requirement. It should be noted that the PSAC voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt ,this proposed amendment. It was the PSAC's position that the existing LDRs and its interpretation (via Code Enforcement Board determinations) are sufficient. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendment. 21. Limitation on Littoral Zone Requirements. County regulations presently require littoral zones for created or expanded waterbodies greater than 1/2 acre in size. County Code Section 934.05(4) specifies that "at least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area shall consist of littoral zone". Staff is proposing that the littoral zone area ratio be either 30% of the waterbody surface area or 21 square feet per linear foot of shoreline, whichever is less. This change is meant to alleviate the burden to developers of providing 30% surface area coverage of littoral zone on large created waterbodies, such as 20 acre mining sites. The 21 square foot area per linear foot shoreline is based upon the existing ordinance design standard of the littoral zone extending from one foot above water control elevation to 2 1/2 feet below, at a maximum slope of 6 feet horizontal to one foot vertical (6:1). 22. Setbacks for Legal Monconforming RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 Zoned Lots. Currently, the LDRs accommodate special setbacks for legal nonconforming RS -3 lots, whereby RS -6 setbacks are applied. The result is a reduction in front and rear yard setbacks from 25' to 20' and a reduction in sideyard setbacks from 15' to 101. The reason for the reduction is that the nonconforming lots, though zoned RS -3, are actually smaller than RS -3 lots and, therefore, cannot reasonably accommodate normal RS -3 setbacks. The same situation occurs for RM -6. RM -8, and RM -10 zoned nonconforming lots used for single family development. In those cases, the current 25' front and rear yard setbacks should be reduced to 201, to allow a reasonable use of the small, nonconforming lots. The proposed ordinance makes such an allowance. 23. Setbacks for Swimming Pool Structures on Corner and Multi - Family Lots. Currently, special rearyard setbacks are given for pools and pool related structures, and the current MRs already recognize to some degree the special situation of most corner lots and multi -family lots in regards to setbacks. For many corner and multi -frontage lots, areas that are technically "sideyards" are actually used as "rearyard" 10 August 15, 1994 M M