My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/28/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
11/28/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 9:59:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Bogosian emphasized that up to that point in time, he was not <br />aware of what the site plan consisted of or what the building <br />permit denoted re the type of building; he also was not aware <br />that these were to be rental units and that fact was noted on <br />various County documents. He continued to explain that he came <br />into'the picture after all that had happened, and therefore, had <br />suggested to his client that they create a property owners' <br />association, which is an expeditious way of creating a very <br />similar situation to a condominium by not having to take the time <br />to obtain State approval of a Declaration of Condominium. If he <br />had known that they were going to have all these problems, he <br />would have recommended that his client file a Declaration of -- <br />Condominium, even if it would have taken more time. However, <br />they recorded all those documents, which he assumed were valid, <br />as far as the County was concerned. His error was not checking <br />with the County on the validity of the matter, but Attorney <br />Bogosian pointed out that he has been involved in various similar <br />situations in the City of Vero Beach where townhouses were <br />created and were able to be sold as individual units under a <br />property owners' association. <br />Attorney Bogosian recalled that site plan approval was <br />given, of course, and two of the units were sold to other <br />individuals. It was at that point in time that the County became <br />aware of the fact that the units were being sold, and then <br />advised his client that he could not sell the units under the <br />circumstances and that he would have to replat the three lots in <br />the subdivision. <br />Attorney Bogosian continued that there appears to be an <br />additional obstacle. According to Building Director Ester Rymer, <br />the fire laws prohibit the sale of the apartments, even if they <br />are replatted, as the construction of the apartment walls do not <br />meet fire law requirements. Apparently, the Building Department <br />feels that renters can burn up because there is inadequate fire <br />protection, but owners should not burn up. The same thing <br />41 <br />NOV 2 8 1984 BOOK 50 mcE 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.