Laserfiche WebLink
DEC I�M`� <br />Mr. Schlitt any notice that he was going to lose his one unit per <br />acre status, and he did not get -anything in the mail about it. Mr. <br />Barkett said there is justification for amendment to the comp plan, <br />if the Board decides to go that route; however, he thought that <br />route is not expedient and not necessary in this case. He agreed <br />with the County Attorney that you can find estoppel, you can treat <br />the property according to the zoning that it actually has today and <br />you can grant the appeal. <br />Chairman Bird recalled that at the time the County went <br />through that massive change under pressure from DCA, it was <br />mentioned that a lot of people were going to wake up some day and <br />find out they had something taken away, in spite -of the Board's <br />efforts, because they just did not realize what was happening in <br />that area. Chairman Bird said in order to vote favorably to the <br />applicant he would need to feel that this was a unique situation <br />because there are a lot of people who were affected by the change <br />who may come before the Board and say, "Well, you did it for him, <br />we want the same treatment." <br />Community Development Director Keating said there were very <br />few like this. <br />Commissioner Scurlock and Chairman Bird asked if that means it <br />is unique. <br />Mr. Keating said there are ten -acre tracts in Fellsmere which <br />have been affected and have asked for rezoning to retain their <br />right to subdivide. <br />Mr. Barkett pointed out that Mr. Schlitt actually went forward <br />and made an effort to rezone; he was relying on the rezoning and he <br />did not know he had a time limit. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that there is always a <br />possibility of the County being sued by neighbors or somebody else. <br />Relying on the existing zoning is not enough to be equitable <br />estoppel. The act or omission must be drastic. For example, the <br />staff was hiding plans to rezone it very quickly after the zoning <br />change, or to redo the comp plan, or one day telling the applicant <br />that there is no problem and making the change the next day. In <br />this case there was a 13 -month time period during which the owner <br />could have split his lot. He had a personal financial reason for <br />not doing so. There was no intentional delay by the County, no <br />holdup on the application while the change was going on. Mr. <br />Vitunac thought there was no evidence whatsoever that the County <br />did anything inequitable. <br />Commissioner Scurlock argued that neither did Mr. Schlitt <br />intentionally delay his process. He went through a_lengthy process <br />made more difficult because of the present economic conditions. <br />32 <br />177 <br />