My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/5/1999
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1999
>
10/5/1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:11:58 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 12:49:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br />q P 7J <br />1hL% <br />would have to be processed through standard procedures for revising the LDR's, including public <br />hearings before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners <br />as well as review by the Professional Services Advisory Committee. <br />Recently, staff met with Mr. Collins regarding this issue. At that time, staff informed Mr. Collins <br />that the County had a mechanism for an individual to apply to amend the LDR's. That process <br />involves payment of a $500.00 application fee and submittal of a formal application. In discussing <br />this issue with Mr. Collins, staff had informed Mr. Collins that staff would not support or initiate his <br />request. Instead of applying for an IDR amendment through the established LDR amendment <br />process, Mr. Collins is now requesting that the Board initiate such an amendment. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />The County's LDR's currently require that accessory uses must be associated with a principal use. <br />That is a recognition of the fact that certain uses and structures are appropriate when used in <br />conjunction with a principal use, but inappropriate as stand-alone uses on a lot. <br />That principle is evident with most accessory uses/structures. Because single-family zoned areas <br />have been developed in anticipation of single-family structures being built on building lots, the <br />character of such an area would change if accessory uses/structures such as stand-alone "principal <br />use" garages, utility sheds, tennis courts, and swimming pools are allowed to be built on single- <br />family lots. <br />One reason that accessory uses/structures are allowed in single-family areas while the same <br />uses/structures are not allowed when they are principal uses is that the use characteristics of an <br />accessory use/structure are often different from the use characteristics of the some usetstructure when <br />it is a principal use. In fact, most uses/structures that are allowed in single-family areas only as <br />accessory uses/structures are allowed in commercial districts as principal uses. <br />For example, a garage to store antique cars cannot be built on a single-family lot unless it is <br />accessory to a single-family house where there is direct oversight and accountability by an on-site <br />resident who is part of the neighborhood. Yet such a garage could be constructed as a principal use <br />on a commercially zoned lot. The same IDR differentiation between principal and accessory uses <br />applies to storage buildings, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar uses/structures. Such <br />a differentiation protects single family areas from encroachment of de -facto recreation -only lots or <br />lots where the principal use/structure involves an active hobby rather than a residential home. <br />Current regulations treat single-family docks the same as other accessory uses because such docks <br />are not allowed to be used until an appropriate principal use (a house) is established on site. Other <br />than allowing property owners to protect their riparian rights from future state dock construction <br />prohibitions with a non-use of the dock condition, there is no reason to regulate docks different from <br />other accessory uses/structures. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not direct staff to initiate an LDR <br />amendment to eliminate the use prohibition for single-family docks on vacant lots. <br />October 5, 1999 <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.