2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Why were Parris and Springer allowed to subdivide the center after the center was constructed without firewalls having been installed between units constituting separate lots? 4. Why was the proposed subdivision of the center presented to the commission as a land condominium as opposed to a party - wall subdivision since no condominium, as defined by Florida Statutes, was proposed or approved for the project? ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the January 15, 1986 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the staff has researched County records relating to the Old Dixie Shopping Center project and analyzed the actions taken and ap- provals given. 'Based upon that analysis, the staff provides the following response to Mr. Berlin's questions. 1. Building permit records were researched to determine the timing and sequence of building permit issuance. According to County records, an application for a permit to construct the center was submitted to the County Building Department on June 22, 1984 by Gary Parris. This was submitted for review only since no general contractor was identified. On July 11, 1984, the review was completed by the Building Department, and the permit was put on hold pending receipt of necessary information. The permit was released to Dave Autry, general contractor, on November 14, 1984, one day after a deed for a portion of the subject property was executed between Mary K. Berlin and Dr. J. Thomas Springer. Subsequently, on November 19, 1984, a second deed for the remaining part of the proper- ty was executed between Mary K. Berlin and Gary Parris. It should also be noted that, throughout the site plan and building permit review process, the construction process, and the subdivision platting process, Joseph Berlin and Gary Parris appeared together on numerous occasions during both official and unofficial meetings with County staff. When the building permit was issued, Dr. Springer was the owner of a portion of the project. In addition, the building permit application was submitted in conjunction with a copy of the approved site plan, an indication that the building permit applicant had the owner's permission to obtain a building permit. Previously, at the initiation of the site plan review process, Mary K. Berlin had designated Total Development, Inc. as agent for the project. For that reason, the staff feels that it was reasonable to accept a building permit application from an individual having possession of a copy of the approved.site plan. As to issuance of one building permit for two properties, that is not unusual. Oftentimes, a site plan is approved for one project comprised of several parcels. In this case, one site plan had been approved for the entire project, so issuance of one building permit°was consistent with standard procedures. Two aspects of this situation may require action. The division of land upon which site plan approval had been obtained and transfer of the site plan approval without 29 FE B 5 1986 Boa 63 -u*-, 518