Laserfiche WebLink
B. Statement of the Controversy Involved <br /> In light of the factual record including the missing and magically appearing May 2000 <br /> preexisting lot determination, the acknowledged mistaken approval of SUB 05-00064, the <br /> existence of more lots than existed before the SUB 05-00064, the developer's and owners' <br /> obligations to conform their property to the zoning and subdivision codes and the County's <br /> continuing obligation to enforce those codes, the Planning Director should issue a declaratory <br /> ruling that determines the applicability of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes on TMK Nos. 3-2- <br /> 002-110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 and 035.5 The factual record of this subdivision is clear,but the <br /> legal status of these lots is unclear and the Director is empowered to provide his opinion by way <br /> of a declaratory ruling. Specifically, the following code sections and their app <br /> licability Tyto the <br /> Pruglo Lots require clarity that only the Director can provide. <br /> 1. Section 23-7. It is unclear to what extent this provision applies to the other <br /> sections of the code governing zoning and subdivisions. It is also unclear to what <br /> necessary improvements are required for the Pruglo Lots. Is a mistakenly approved <br /> subdivision eligible for§23-7 status and if so,does County have enforcement power <br /> to enforce other provisions of the zoning, subdivision and related construction <br /> codes? <br /> 2. Section 23-30. Since a seasonal stream bisect the <br /> e Property, it is unclear <br /> what drainage easements apply to the Pruglo Lots and unclear whether streets or <br /> parkways parallel to water courses are required. Does County have the power to <br /> require designation of drainage easements and street and parkways? <br /> 3. Section 23-62 (c). It is unclear whether the Zoning Code, Chapter 25, <br /> applies to the Pruglo Lots and how it applies to development on the Pruglo Lots. <br /> Given that three of the SUB 05-00064 lots mistakenly approved by the Planning <br /> Department are smaller than the code mandated 5 acres, what is the minimum lot <br /> size for the Pruglo Lots? What is their legal status? <br /> 4. Section 23-74(c): It is unclear whether this section requires the Pruglo Lots <br /> developer to correct or fix any discrepancies in SUB05-00064. <br /> 5 The tax map shows a Lot 110, but the County property tax database does not show Lot <br /> 110,but does show Lot 068. <br /> 9 <br /> 12 <br />