4/9/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • 200 daily trips" txreshold equates to 20 single family parcels. Therefore, applying the 954.10(3) paving exemption threshold to affidavits of exemption would limit the number of affidavit of exemption parcels to less than 20. Ln the context of affidavits of exemption, 20 or more parcels would cover 100 or more acres. Rased on the 954.10(3) standard, staff has drafted an LDR amendment ordinance that reduces the current affidavit of exemption threshold from "50 or more" parcels to "20 or more" Parcels. As proposed, the LDR amendment ordinance (see attachment #8) also contains the changes that were considered by the PZC last September. Thus, adoption of the proposed ordinance would allow affidavits of exemption on agriculturally designated lands and would limit such projects (as well as affidavits of exemption inside the Urban Service Area) to less than 20 parcels. These proposed changes are consistent with current comprehensive plan policies and direction given by the Board, and would reasonably limit use of the affidavit of exemption process to smaller sized "projects" (creation of 1- 19 parcels). The proposed ordinance does not change the current county -wide requirement that newly created affidavit of exemption parcels front on either a public road or private platted road right-of-waN. Pam Canady, an owner of agriculturally designated property, has proposed that the county affidavit of exemption regulations be changed to allow private access easements in lieu of the frontage requirement (see attachment #6). Staffs experience has been that platted private road right-of-way (no paved road required) is better than use of private easements because the platting requirements of LDR Chapter 913 already contain appropriate right-of-way location, design, and dimension standards. 1 here are no such standards for private easements. Also, platted rignts-of-way are better than private easements because such rignts-of-way are established with a legal mechanism for proper private maintenance, and require county and lot owner approval and notice prior to any possible future changes. This platting process protects the county and lot owners in a manner that cannot be provided by private easements, which could be amended without notice or county review. Therefore, neither staff nor the PSAC rior the PZC support any changes to the frontage requirements for affidavit of exemption lots, and none are proposed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County_ Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance. ATTACHMENTS April 9, 2002 October 23, 2001 BCC Minutes Staff Report for Januarv. 22. 2002 3CC ylecth I Minutes from the January 22, 2002 RCC Meeting LDR Section 954.1013) February 21, 2002 PSAC Minutes Canady "Easement Proposal' Minutes tiom March 14, 2002 PZC Meeting Proposed Ordinance 35 nri Jc;