9/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LimousinelAmbulance Business on the US #I/OCR Parcel. Earlier this year, a limousinelambulance business opened on the U.S. #1/OCR parcel. Prior to that, Mr. Jordan called county planning staff to determine if the use was allowed in the OCR zoning district. The County Code does not specifically list limousine and/or ambulance services in its Table of Commercial Uses (County Code Section 911.10(4)). In such instances, the community development director is authorized to determine if the use is allowed (ref. County Code Section 911.04(2)(b)) basad on the most similar use listed in the Table of Commercial Uses. In this case, the community development director determined that the limousine/ambulance service was allowed, basad on the allowance of a similar use ("general and professional office") in the OCR district. The limousine/ambulance service business is no longer in operation on the subject Jordan property. However, Ms. Cates has filed an appeal of staffs determination allowing the use. The County Code provides that such appeals are heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Gates' appeal is pending; the appeal is scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 23, 1997. Depending on the outcome of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeal, the issue may be further appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS Dating back to 1991, County staff has been responsive to code compliance issues raised concerning various aspects of the subject Jordan property. This responsiveness is reflected in the numerous correspondences with Mr. Jordan about compliance issues, including the issuance of several Notices of Violation In each instance, staff has responded in a professional, objective manner in an effort to interpret and enforce county land development regulations. The questions raised by Ms. Gates relate to issues that are not "clear-cut," but rather warranted interpretations of county laws and ordinances, which interpretations are the charge of county staff. The County Code has an appeal mechanism when affected parties disagree with staff interpretations, and Ms. Gates is exercising her right to appeal (on the issue of the limousinelambulance business use allowance in the OCR district). By the same token that an affected party has a right to appeal, there are laws that limit the duration of time after a contested action within which an appeal can be filed. The time limit for appeals serves to protect other affected parties (in this case, Mr. Jordan) from unreasonable economic (or other) burdens that could result from an appeal filed months or years after a government action. Stafrs position is that staff acted appropriately concerning each of the issues raised by Ms. Gates and summarized herein. Concerning the pending appeal of staffs determination of the allowance of a limousine/ambulance business in the OCR district, stafrs position is that it is inappropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to hear the matter until the pending appeal before the Planning and Zoning Commission has run its course. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners affirm staffs interpretation and enforcement of county zoning regulations as they apply to the subject Jordan property, except relating to the limousine/ambulance business use allowance issue which is pending appeal. Connie Gates told of her frustrations concerning the property owned since 1991 by Bill Jordan. She gave a comprehensive narration of the history of the property since then and the code enforcement concerns and frustrations and offered Code Enforcement file photographs in support of her allegations. She requested the Board help resolve the issues she brought to them which appear in her letters of September 16, 1997, as follows: 31 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997