9/19/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1) The grandfathered provisions under the Zoning Code that Mr. Putnam relied on relate to non -conformities due to zoning. They do not relate in any way to non -conformities or differences established in the Comp Plan, which is what we have in question here. As far as the Zoning Code is concerned, this property always has been in conformance because it was and still is zoned commercial. Therefore, the provisions Mr. Putnam relied on are just not applicable. 2) The only question comes down to the wording in the Comp Plan and what the intent of the Board was when they adopted it. Attorney Brandenburg believed that Mr. Putnam's interpretation is that the actual use itself, such as a gas pump for instance, is what the Board was considering making consistent with the plan and, therefore, any other commercial use, no matter what it would be, would be an additional use that would not necessarily be consistent with the plan. That is the most narrow way that provision can be read. In the past the County has not applied that provision so narrowly, and there have been instances where an individual with valid commercial zoning in existence at the time the plan was adopted was allowed to develop further commercial uses on his property, which is the case here. Louis Williamson, resident of Vista Royale, pointed out that until you get to the area north of the South Relief Canal on U.S. #1, the speed limit is 55 mph and reported that a person was killed in an accident on that bridge just last year. He also pointed out that there is no access from this piece of property for southbound traffic. In addition, the site plan does not provide any access for dredging the canal, but Planner Goetzfried advised that there is a 250 -ft. right-of-way for the canal and the canal is in the center of that right-of-way. 61 SEP 19 1984 Booz 58 mu 383 J