Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

Growth Management Report 12. 7.

BCC Regular Meeting

Meeting Date:	05/25/2017
Issue: 5:50 p.m. - A Public Hearing - Vested Rights Determination - VRD-2017-01
Department:	Development Services

RECOMMENDATION:

5:50 p.m. - Recommendation Concerning the Review of Vested Rights Determination VRD-2017-01

That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review and approve the following Vested Rights case:

Case No.:	VRD-2017-01
Project Address:	9300 Blk Gibson Road
Property Reference No.:	24-3N-32-1301-001-001
Zoning District:	Agr
FLU Category:	AG
Vested Rights for:	Land Use
Applicant:	Constance Parker

BACKGROUND:

In 2002, the Applicant purchased a ten-acre parcel of land that was a portion of an 85± acre lot-of-record. While the future land use and zoning both called for minimum 20-acre lots, the applicant pulled a permit in 2003 and built a home on the west half of the ten acre parcel. The western five-acre portion containing the home was sold in 2005 and that same year the applicant became the sole owner of the remaining eastern five acres. The applicant has since paid taxes on the five acres in question and states that she believed it to be a buildable lot.

In 2017, the applicant approached Planning staff regarding permitting a home on the parcel and was told that the parcel was non-conforming with future land use and zoning and a building permit could not be issued. Staff reviewed with the applicant the idea of seeking a future land use change along with a rezoning to make the parcel conforming. This option would prove difficult as either change would result in an isolated district and would be a considerable cost while providing no assurance of a positive outcome.

Faced with these options, the applicant is requesting to be vested with development rights for the non-conforming five-acre parcel.

CRITERIA FOR VESTED RIGHTS:

LDC 2-6.7 Vested Rights. It is the intent of the Land Development Code to provide a mechanism for the granting of an equitable vested right according to the provisions of this section when a landowner asserts that sufficient development activity, once lawful under applicable land use regulations but now contrary to their terms, has occurred so that the landowner is entitled to a development right. 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 3, Chapter 5 at the time of vesting.

CRITERION 1:

LDC 2-6.7(1) The project 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 rights to which the owner may be vested is a continuation of the original order, or equivalent.

FINDINGS:

Staff research has found no permit or other development approval for the parcel in question.

LDC 2-6.8(f) Limitation on vested rights. A determination of vested rights shall expire and be null and void unless construction of improvements, if any, are commenced pursuant to a development order within 18 months after the issuance of the determination of vested rights.

CRITERION 2:

LDC 2-6.7(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 contends that her expense in taxes and surveys for the parcel have vested her with development rights. She also has stated her belief that since the County granted a permit on the western five acres, she believed the eastern five acres was buildable as well.

In a review of the permit issued for the western parcel, staff found mention that the permit was granted based on the Land Development Code family conveyance provision (Sec. 5-3.2(d)) which states:

Family conveyance exception. No building permit shall be denied where the property in question is to be used solely as a homestead by an owner-applicant who is the grandparent, parent, step-parent, adopted parent, sibling, child, step-child, adopted child, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle or grandchild of the person who conveyed the parcel to such applicant, notwithstanding the density or intensity of use assigned to the parcel by a particular zoning district. This exception shall apply only once to any owner-applicant.

Because this provision has already been applied to the parent ten acres, it is not available for the remaining parcel.

Attachments
Application Packet