Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

7. A.

Planning Board-Rezoning

Meeting Date:	03/05/2019
Issue: A Public Hearing Concerning Vested Rights Determination - VRD-2019-01
Department:	Development Services

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Board review and make recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on the following Vested Rights case:

Case No.:	VRD-2019-01
Project Address:	625 Calhoun Ave
Property Reference No.:	35-2S-31-1000-023-064
Zoning District:	HDMU, High Density Mixed-use district (25 du/acre)
FLU Category:	MU-U, Mixed-Use Urban
Overlay District:	Warrington
Vested Rights for:	Allow a MH in HDMU/Warrington Overlay
AIPD Area:	AIPD-2
Applicant:	Lester & Tricia Hendricks, Owner

BACKGROUND:

The owner purchased property at 625 Calhoun Avenue and upon inspection of the dwelling he concluded that it was more cost affective to demolish the structure. Prior to purchasing the mobile home, he received a demolition permit from the Building Inspections Department (BID) which reads as follows: " Demo existing 800 SF structure due to rot/decay, prepare site to receive MH- will use existing septic". After reviewing the timeline submitted, it appears that the property owner/applicant did not confer with the Planning & Zoning staff to ascertain the allowable uses on the parcel which is zoned HDMU, and also within the Warrington Overlay. See CRA response letter in the backup.

The owner went to the health department for approval of the existing septic tank, at which time was told he needed Planning & Zoning sign off. Staff reviewed the parcel and although the HDMU zoning allows for mobile homes, the property is within the Warrington Overlay, prohibiting mobile homes. The applicant relied on the County and thought all things were in compliance with the code once he received the demolition permit and inspections.

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 a demolition permit on November 6, 2018, which noted the placement of a mobile home on the property. The owner was of the understanding that the issuance of the demolition permit allowed the placement of a mobile home on site. The applicant has provide evidence of the progress and cost associated with the placement of a mobile home on site.

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:

The applicant received a demolition permit which stated that the site would be prepared to have a mobile home placed on site. Not being aware of the zoning overlay regulations, the applicant relied on the County and believed that the demolition permit was all he needed to place a mobile home on the lot. The owner then incurred extensive cost in preparing the site and purchasing a mobile home. It was only after he was directed to Planning and Zoning that he was informed that the parcel was within the Warrington Redevelopment Area, which prohibited mobile homes. The applicant has produced documentation showing the process he went through as well as the cost associated, and staff has reviewed and verified.

Attachments
Working Case File