12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

some acti=�or omission of the County staff that Mr. Schlitt reasonably relied upon to his detriment. However, Mr. Vitunac did not think this is such a case. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Bob Schlitt, the applicant, came before the Board and said he agreed with everything staff said. Staff did not make a mistake; it was correctly decided, the law was correctly applied. He said only the Board can make the determination that fairness requires that Mr. Schlitt be allowed to split his property. He said if the Board determines that an official act took place, i.e., rezoning, that he relied on that rezoning while he was making his application for loans and proceeding to develop his property, and that he changed his position in reliance upon that application, then you can find an estoppel. Mr. Barkett agreed with Commissioner Scurlock's opinion that this is an unfair situation and that the Board is in a position to correct that unfairness. Mr. Barkett recounted the steps taken by Mr. Schlitt in listing his property for sale and paying the various fees, all in reliance on the rezoning he received from the County. When the comp plan amendments were published in the newspaper, it was too vague for most people to comprehend. -Mr. Schlitt received certified letters telling him about the hearings to rezone his property but he received no notice that he was about to lose that right. If he had gotten notice that he was about to lose his right to split his property, he certainly would have recorded a deed splitting the property. This is not the fault of County staff; that is the system and in this case it is not fair. In reliance on the zoning which Mr. Schlitt received on May 11, 1990- -he paid for an appraisal and a survey. His son Michael, who signed a contract to purchase the property, expended funds for building permits, land clearing, and an appraisal; approximately $1,300 at this point. The most specific thing Mr. Schlitt did in reliance is not to take immediate action. As staff indicated, it would have been simple for Mr. Schlitt, if he had known that he was about to lose his right, to go down and record a deed splitting the lot, but he did not because he had no reason to expect his RS -1 zoning (up to one unit per acre) was going to be changed to A-1 (up to one unit per five acres). Mr. Barkett summarized that this property is next to L-2, Pine Tree Park, which is zoned RS -1P to one unitu ( per acre). The comp plan, which was basically handed down by the State, did not give 31 FEE 1 1991 nor � �:FL l .�� AW