1/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

kiAN 19 198 BOOK 70 PAGE 604 all years of operation. It was stated that failure to obtain an occupational license may have been due to lack of knowledge of the requirement. During this discussion, it was recommended by the Assistant County Attorney that an alternative to exclusive use of occupational licenses might be the useof business records, bank accounts for the business, a combination of occupational licenses and business records and accounts, proof that the business had been granted prior grandfather status by another governing body such as the Code Enforcement Board, or proof of exemption from local permitting requirements. Although the staff's position is that none of the subject businesses existing in the Rose -4 area were legally established, staff feels, because of the reasons stated below, that grandfathering uses existing for over five years would be fair. Prior to its designation as Rose -4, the subject area was zoned RMH-6, RMH-8, R1 -RM, and R-3 at different times. Of these only the R-3 district allowed uses other than standard residential uses. The R-3 district allowed several non-residential uses; these were hotels, motels, restaurants, hospitals, boarding houses, filling stations and marinas. None of the existing uses falls in these categories; so none of the existing uses (all of which have been established since 1957 - the inception of zoning in Indian River County) could have been established in conformance with County codes. It is staff's position that grandfathering any business in place as of February 24, 1987 would be inappropriate. The February 24, 1982 date, decided by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting of October 14, 1987,. is more equitable. That option reflects the fact that establishment of a business in the Rose -4 area within the last five years could only be done by intentionally circumventing County codes; whereas, prior to that time, particularly in the 1957 to the mid 1970's period, there is a possibility that businesses could have been established without an attempt to violate the zoning code. Therefore, using the February 24, 1982 date as the grandfathering cutoff reflects the fact that zoning code administration may not have been diligent prior to the mid -seventies, but recognize that code implementation has been adequate in recent years. Regarding the issue of requiring proof of occupational permits from 1982 to 1987 to acquire grandfathered status, the staff feels that other evidence could suffice. The options provided by the Assistant County Attorney to the Planning and Zoning Commission and identified above would be acceptable. Use of these alternate criteria would benefit those existing uses which have operated for a number of years yet did not have occupational licenses for that entire time. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed ordinance to repeal and recreate the home occupation section of the Rose -4 zoning ordinance. 44