7/8/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M r Bob Schlitt, 505 66th Avenue, noted the I.D. number of his property is 18-33-39-00001-0080-00005.1. He felt he has rather a unique situation in that he spent something like $5,000 to get an RS -1 zoning on his 5 acres of land that he purchased back in 1984. He received a letter from the Board of County Commissioners dated December 18, 1991 indicating that the Board determined by a 4-1 vote that the subject property and its recent rezoning history was unique and that the County is equitably estopped from applying any zoning standard more stringent than RS -1 district requirements. At the time he received this letter, he was able to sell one of the 1.5 acres of the 5 acres. Basically, he just has one additional lot that he would like to sell and then hold on to the 2-1/2 acres where his residence is. The hardship with this would be that when the County puts in water lines, he would have to pay on the basis of frontage which he estimates would be about 480 feet and in the neighborhood of $20,000. Water is expected to be coming through in 1993 in phase three of what they are doing in that neighborhood right now. The other hardship is that 66th Avenue might require repaving since there is a possibility that it will become a citrus route plus the fact that it is a main arterial. He has lived all his life in this county, raised his family here, and paid taxes here, and he basically feels that if he is not able to sell this last lot, he would be forced to sell his land at a very bad time economically. Mr. Schlitt stressed that he has come before the Board twice on rezoning and on December 18, 1991, they did give him an RS -1 zoning, and he is now requesting that he be allowed to retain that zoning. Director Keating advised that staff has discussed this with Mr. Schlitt and Deputy County Attorney Will Collins. We looked at the specific action that the Board took a number of months ago and from the records we looked at, staff made the determination that the Board determined that Mr. Schlitt could divide his property once because he had started the process prior to the new Comp Plan taking effect. What the Board did not do, nor could not do at that time, was change the land use designation on that piece of property without going through a Comp Plan amendment. To create one more lot out there, Mr. Schlitt would need to go through the subdivision process, but that was never initiated at the time when it was zoned RS -1 and the land use designation was appropriate for that zoning designation. For the RS -1 zoning to remain, there would have to be a Comp Plan amendment; otherwise, both lots that Mr. Schlitt has there now are existing lots of record and perfectly valid and 39 } HOOK j ["t ' 0