1/19/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 • TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D1,V1WN1 HEAD CONCURRENCE: r iJ Obert M. Keating, AICP Community Developmen i FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: January 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of County Regulations Relating to Private Roadways Used as Frontage for Lot Splits It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 19, 1999. In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the county's subdivision ordinance. Those changes allowed certain private roadways to constitute road frontage for lot (parcel) splits. Thus, under certain circumstances, the changes allow a property owner to create an additional parcel that fronts upon an unplatted, private roadway. Under these provisions, several private roadways have been approved for lot split frontage purposes, and several lots have been created. In August 1998, property owner Michael O'Haire applied for approval to split a parcel by using an unpaved private roadway as frontage for the new parcel. The subject property is located at 575 SR A-1 A, immediately north of the Sunset Point Subdivision. Mr. O'Haire's application, if approved, would allow creation of a third lot on the subject site which now contains two parcels that have existed for many years. Staff reviewed the application and sent out a discrepancy letter in August 1998. Recently, Mr. O'Haire responded to staff s comments. His response satisfies staff s concerns but shows that the private roadway in question has shifted from its previous (historical) alignment, although its general location is the same. Mr. Jack Krovocheck, owner of the property south of the subject site and the developer of Sunset Pointe subdivision, contends that the re -alignment renders Mr. O'Haire's application tmapprovable. Mr. Krovocheck contends that the private roadway criteria do not allow re -aligned roads to qualify as frontage for proposed lot splits (see attachment #4). The private roadway criteria that the applicant must satisfy allow "grand -fathering -in" old roadways but do not directly address whether or not a private roadway can be shifted and still be "grand- fathered -in". Because the Board's intent on this issue was not discussed at the time of the subdivision ordinance change, planning staff and the county attorney's office have determined that the Board needs to clarify this aspect of the regulation. The subdivision ordinance provisions in question are from LDR section 913.06(1)(c)2. (see attachment #1). These provisions apply only to lot splits. Lot splits are limited to one split of any parcel that existed prior to July 23, 1983, subject to zoning size, dimensional and frontage standards. The provisions were put into the ordinance by the Board in 1994 to allow lot splits to occur off of unplatted, "historical" private roadways that meet the following criteria: "a. The physical roadway located within the easements(s) existed prior to the county's road frontage requirement (December 8,1973); and b. The physical roadway has a width meeting county local road standards (twenty (20) feet for single-family development)." In addition to these criteria, an administrative approval application must be filed (as has been done by Mr. O'Haire), and a person or entity must commit to maintaining the private roadway. Staff has determined that Mr. O'Haire's application meets the criteria, except that it is unclear whether or not criterion a. allows roadway re -alignment, and if so to what degree. JANUARY 19, 1999 -83- Boar PAG467