2/1/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK r;v[E One reason that accessory uses/structures are allowed in single-family areas while the same uses/structures are not allowed when they are principal uses is that the use characteristics of an accessory use/structure are often different from the use characteristics of the same use/structure when it is a principal use. In fact, most uses/structures that are allowed in single-family areas only as accessory uses/structures are allowed in commercial districts as principal uses. For example, a garage to store antique cars cannot be built on a single-family lot unless it is accessory to a single-family house where there is direct oversight and accountability by an on-site resident who is part of the neighborhood. Yet such a garage could be constructed as a principal use on a commercially zoned lot. The same LDR differentiation between principal and accessory uses applies to storage buildings, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other similar uses/structures. Such a differentiation protects single family areas from encroachment of de -facto recreation -only lots or lots where the principal use/structure involves an active hobby rather than a residential home. Current regulations treat single-family docks the same as other accessory uses because such docks are not allowed to be used until an appropriate principal use (a house) is established on site. Other than allowing property owners to protect their riparian rights from future state dock construction prohibitions with a non-use of the dock condition, there is no reason to regulate docks different from other accessory uses/structures. Therefore, the existing LDR prohibition of using docks on vacant lots is appropriate. At its October 5, 1999 meeting, the Board considered a request by riverfront property owner Tom Collins for the county to initiate an LDR amendment to allow use of docks built on vacant single- family lots. By a votc of 3-2, the Board authorized county initiation of such an LDR change (see attachment #2). The proposed LDR amendment would allow use of docks and private observation/fishing piers on vacant single-family lots but would still require, through the administrative permit use process, that dock owners post security to guarantee that docks are used only to moor watercraft registered in the name of the lot owner. Such a provision could address a potential problem occasionally encountered in the City of Vero Beach, where docks on vacant lots are allowed to be used, (see attachment #3). That problem is that occasionally docks on vacant single-family lots are rented -out in violation of city codes. Alternatives include the following: A. Leave the current LDRs as is, retaining the current prohibition on use of docks built on vacant lots (this is the approach preferred by staff). B. Allow docks to be built on vacant lots and used but require the posting of a $1,500 cash bond to guarantee that no such docks are rented -out (this is the approach of the attached amendment). A timeframe for building a residence on the lot could also be added to this alternative (this is the approach recommended by the PSAC). C. Allow docks to be built and used on vacant lots as a permitted use, with no special criteria (this is the approach recommended by the PZC). Alternative A is preferred by staff. Either alternative B or C would relax current requirements but alternative B would retain some of the current controls via special criteria and a posted cash bond. Alternative C would be the simplest regulatory scheme but would rely solely on code enforcement action to combat violations. February 1, 2000 • 52 • 1