12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney -1arkett pointed out that if the neighborhood did bring suit, the solution would be to rezone it back. There would be no monetary damages or any loss or any attorney fees. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there was a process for Mr. Schlitt to ask for an extension. Mr. Keating said there was not, but he could have done the split which would have vested him in the two parcels, and he could have reconfigured those at some future time as long as he kept those two parcels. Attorney Barkett stated that there was one other factor involved. While Bob Schlitt was relying on the rezoning to allow the division of the property, his son, Michael Schlitt, the contract purchaser, had discussions with staff several times and never was put on notice that he should record the deed or lose his right to do so. Bob Schlitt, 505 66th Avenue, came before the Board and stated his case. He told the Commissioners that he is a native of Indian River County, had raised nine children and he and his wife were foster parents for over 400 children from Indian River County. He has been selling insurance in Indian River County for over 30 years. They sold their 10 -bedroom home and purchased this five acres and built their dream home on two and a half acres, r surrounded by trees. Approximately two years ago his wife started ` a small business funded by a second mortgage on this property. They expected to have to feed the business for five years, but without the sale of the two and a half acres, he expects to have problems. Mr. Schlitt recounted the expenses involved with placing the property on the market and having to reduce the price from the original $84,000 to $67,000. At that point his son Michael offered to buy it and, relying on the RS -1 zoning, Michael began the process. Mr. Schlitt said his bank determined he could not split the property -without a buyer, but—had agreed to an interest only y loan in reliance on the RS -1 zoning. In addition, he is concerned about anticipated assessments for water and roads which are calculated on square footage. Mr. Schlitt thanked the Board and asked for their approval of his appeal. Michael Schlitt, 1725 25th Avenue, came before the Board and detailed his activities in the case. He said there seemed to be no AD question during all his visits to the Building Department that his plan was feasible until he filed a building permit application, at which time he was told the property could not be split. Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification on the zoning in the surrounding property. 33 DEC 1 7 1W �or� F ;,c