Laserfiche WebLink
At its regular meeting of December 17, 1991 the Board of County <br />Commissioners considered the above referenced appeal. Although the <br />Board did not grant the appeal pursuant to the provisions of <br />section 902 of the land development regulations (LDRs), the Board <br />did determine ( 4-1) that the subject property and its recent zoning <br />history is unique and that the county is equitably estopped from <br />applying any zoning standards more stringent than the RS -1 district <br />requirements. - Therefore, staff is now applying only the RS -1 <br />zoning district standards to the subject parcel. <br />The result of the Board's action is that the previously submitted <br />Michael Schlitt building permit application (reference project <br />#91090106) can be taken off hold by county planning staff as soon <br />as he provides staff a copy of the recorded deed establishing the <br />second +21 acre parcel. As you are aware, a separate parcel must <br />be created for the proposed Michael Schlitt residence. As <br />previously explained to you and Michael Schlitt, and as I mentioned <br />.to Michael after the December 17th Board meeting, the subject ±5 <br />acre parcel may be split one time into two separate, buildable <br />"parcels without platting. Any subsequent property division may <br />only occur via the filing of a plat. <br />Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not <br />hesitate to contact me at (407) 567-8000, extension 242. I await <br />.documentation from Michael regarding creation of the second, ±21 <br />acre parcel. <br />Sincerely, <br />. .... <br />�. <br />Stan Boling, AICP <br />Planning Director <br />TSB/cb <br />Considerable discussion ensued regarding the Board's intention <br />at the December 17, 1991 meeting when Mr. Schlitt was allowed to <br />keep his RS -1 zoning, and Chairman Eggert recalled that the Board <br />was talking about taking a 5 -acre parcel and separating it into two <br />2-1/2 acre parcels, but apparently that is not what happened. Mr. <br />Schlitt retained his 2-1/2 acre lot where his residence is and sold <br />off 1-1/2 acres of the other 2-1/2 acres. <br />Director Keating didn't believe there was a prohibition of Mr. <br />Schlitt doing less than two. The Board determined it could be <br />divided in two and never said it had to be two 2-1/2 acre lots. He <br />felt the 1-1/2 acre split was fine, but what the Board determined <br />was that Mr. Schlitt had been proceeding and going about the <br />process of doing the one-time split while it was appropriately <br />zoned and, therefore, the decision was that the split could occur. <br />To say that a previous zoning inconsistent with the land use <br />41 <br />BOOK U�9 P,u. JUU <br />