9/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b0 -A .1,, Darr General Property Description: The subject Jordan property consists of 3 adjacent parcels, totaling approximately ±1.2 acres, at the nortlieast corner of U.S. #1 and 105'b Place. The front ±0.4 acre parcel along U.S. #1 is zoned OCR, Office/Commerciall Residential, and has a Future Land Use Designation of Commercial /Industrial Node. The remaining two east parcels are zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential, and have a Future Land Use Designation of L-2, Low Density Residential. The OCR, U.S. #1 front parcel has a building that was formerly a residence. The middle parcel is encompassed by a chain-link fence, and the eastem-most parcel has a commercial garage - type structure attached to an officelresidence. There are also two mobile homes on the eastern -most parcel. Auto Repair Business on East Parcel. In 1991, County staff initiated a code enforcement case concerning an auto repair business on the eastem-most parcel. In bringing that case to the Code Enforcement Board, staffs position was that the auto repair business in the residential zoning district was a code violation because its "grandfathered" status had lapsed due to an extended period of time that the building was vacant. However, after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony, the Code Board voted to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence. Subsequently, since staff found no new evidence supporting its position within 30 days of the 1991 hearing, which is the time -frame allowed under Florida Statutes for an appeal of a Code Board decision, staff accepted the Board's action and concluded that the auto repair use was vested as a legal nonconforming ("grandfathered") use. Ms. Gates contends that the information provided by the respondent to the Code Enforcement Board in 1991 was erroneous and mislead the Board. Further, Ms. Gates' position is that the Code Board's 1991 action left open an opportunity for the case to be reheard if new information was provided that rebutted evidence provided by the respondent in 1991. County attorney staffs position is that, in accordance with Florida Statutes, any opportunity to rehear the case expired 30 days after the 1991 hearing. Mobile Homes on East Parcel: In 1994, county staff cited Mr. Jordan for a dilapidated mobile home on the east parcel. In corresponding with Mr. Jordan on that issue, a question arose concerning the grandfathered status of the dilapidated mobile home (and another existing mobile home on the property), and whether there was an opportunity for Mr. Jordan to replace the dilapidated mobile home. After researching the history of the property, staff concluded that the two mobile homes were grandfathered, and that the dilapidated mobile home could be replaced (see attached 12/21/94 staff letter to Mr. Jordan on the subject). Ms. Gates questions staff interpretation of county code requirements that led to the allowance of the two mobile homes as legal nonconformities. Fenced Middle Parcel. In 1996, county staff cited Mr. Jordan for the storage of commercial "U - Haul" trailers on the middle fenced parcel. That code enforcement action instigated a review of property deeds by county attorney staff. As a result, it was found that the middle parcel's ownership was historically "tie -barred" to the east auto repair parcel, and not to the U.S. #1/OCR parcel (contrary to depictions on County tax assessment maps). In a letter dated June 5, 1996 (see attached), staff notified Mr. Jordan of the finding and advised him that, if the middle parcel was historically used for storage of vehicles being repaired as part of the grandfathered auto repair business, then storage on the middle parcel would be grandfathered. Mr. Jordan subsequently wrote to staff and indicated that the middle parcel had in fact been used for vehicle storage as part of the auto repair business, and the case was closed. More recently, an issue arose concerning Mr. Jordan's use of the fenced middle parcel to store vehicles and equipment relating to his irrigation business that is headquartered elsewhere in the county. Staff advised Mr. Jordan that, since the irrigation business vehicles and equipment are not associated with the grandfathered auto repair business, the vehicles and equipment must be removed. Earlier this month, Mr. Jordan indicated that he was in the process of arranging for the removal of the vehicle(s) and equipment. 30 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997