|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Growth Management Report 14. 3.
|
| BCC Regular Meeting |
|
|
|
| RECOMMENDATION: |
5:46 p.m. - Recommendation Concerning the Review of Vested Rights Determination VRD-2018-01
That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review and approve the following Vested Rights case:
| Case No.: |
VRD-2018-01 |
| Project Address: |
3411 John Street |
| Property Reference No.: |
16-2S-30-1001-330-004 |
| Zoning District: |
HDMU, High Density Mixed-use district (25 du/acre) |
| FLU Category: |
MU-U, Mixed-Use Urban |
| Vested Rights for: |
Allow a MH in HDMU zoning |
| Applicant: |
Tanaya Rosa, Agent for Keith L. Davis, Owner |
|
| BACKGROUND: |
| In 2011, the applicant applied for and was granted a rezoning from R-4 to R-5 , which is now HDMU zoning for the parcel located at 3411 John Street. The parcel is within the Englewood Overlay and during the rezoning meeting in 2011, the Community and Redevelopment Agency (CRA) stated, "The CRA does not support an increase in high density residential, R-5, as it allows for more intense development..". This issue was noted at the Planning Board, who made a unanimous vote to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn approved the rezoning. Following the approval of the rezoning, the applicant had severe medical issues and was not able to go forward with placing a mobile home on the lot, but has since purchased a mobile home for the lot. HDMU allows for mobile homes, although there is a prohibition within the Englewood Overlay as specified in the LDC in affect as of April 15, 2015. |
| CRITERIA FOR VESTED RIGHTS: |
| An owner shall be entitled to a determination of vested rights only if through substantial competent evidence it can be established that the proposed use of the property meets the concurrency provisions of Article 5 and in addition one of the following criteria has been met: |
| CRITERION 1: |
The proposed use was authorized pursuant to a county development order, or equivalent, issued on or before the effective date of this Code, or a pertinent amendment thereto, and the development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. In a claim based upon this criterion, the owner must produce evidence of actions and accomplishments that substantiate timely and lawful progression towards the completion of the intentions and plans documented in the original order, or equivalent. In a claim based upon this criterion, the right to which the owner may be vested is a continuation of the original order, or equivalent.
FINDINGS:
The property in question received an approval of a rezoning to R-5 (now HDMU) by the BCC in 2011 with discussions of the placement of a mobile home. The rezoning allowed any and all permitted uses in that district to be developed. The owner was of the understanding that the approval of the rezoning allowed the placement of a mobile home on site and was with good intentions in the process until he had serious medical issues that prevented him from moving forward. |
| CRITERION 2: |
The owner is determined to have acquired rights due to good faith reliance on an act of commission or omission of the County which has caused the owner to make such a substantial change in position or to incur such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired. In a claim based upon this criterion, the owner must document, and the County must verify, the obligations and expenses that are in jeopardy. The owner must produce evidence of actions and accomplishments that substantiate timely and lawful progression towards the completion of the intentions and plans that have been jeopardized. Evidence including, but not limited to, that which demonstrates that such activity has not progressed in such a manner may be sufficient to negate a finding of good faith on the part of the owner and therefore invalidate the claim to vested rights.
FINDINGS:
Due to the fact that the owner received a rezoning and there were discussions regarding the placement of a mobile home, the applicant had good intentions and plans to purchase the home for the parcel in question. The applicant has produced documentation, which we as staff have verified, that he was under doctors care and he states his medical condition was such that he was not able to complete the purchase of the mobile home to be placed on site until this year. |
| PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: |
| The Planning Board recommended approval of the Vested Rights case. |
|
|
|
|