Agenda Package - 05-07-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(i ;~'GOU^'~i- SpNpO ® ~ ca~xm O~ 90 MEMORANDUM e* ! ! o = y a tit n 0q,'H CAR~~, H9gTEPEO TO: Lee County Board of Commissioners Lisa Minter, Lee County Interim Manager I ~'t/:~ FROM: Marshall Downey; Assistant Director of Community Development /1 DATE: April 23, 2007 REF: Planning Board Recommendation on two UDO amendments Amendment # 1 - The Planning Board and Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing to consider amending Section 5.1 to allow accessory buildings to be located on separate parcels in the unincorporated areas of Lee County's zoning jurisdiction. Section 5.1.2.1 of the UDO currently states, "Accessory buildings or uses shall not be constructed or established on a lot until construction of the principal building has commenced or the primary use is established. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes, except where permitted in this Ordinance." In effect, this rule prohibits the splitting of a residential tract of land wherein the resultant new lot would contain only an accessory structure (a typical accessory structure being a smaller structure located on the same lot as the principal dwelling and used for personal, non-commercial use). However, staff has received complaints from a couple of property owners in the County who claim this rule is a hardship. Because of the size of the tracts involved, these are situations wherein an accessory shed or shop is located quite a distance from the main home. Under the current rules, a new lot cannot be created which would contain only the shop or shed. As applied, this rule works well in the municipalities, because the tracts to be subdivided are generally small (less than two acres). As an example, property owner X is within the city's zoning and has 1.5 acres which contains his house and a detached garage. He decides he wants to split the 1.5 acres in two tracts. Under the rules as stated above he can subdivide so long as the house and the detached garage remain on the same tract. Again, this works well in the municipalities as the acreages involved are generally small. It should be noted that all three of the previous zoning ordinances contained the same limitation as the UDO. However, it should also be noted that the County did allow accessory structures to be on stand alone lots in the 1990s. However, that policy changed in the late 1990s do to concerns over the inappropriate commercial use of some of these detached accessory buildings. The planning staff suggests that illegal land use is an issue regardless of O whether the accessory structure is on a separate lot