CE 08/14/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lingenfelter advised the Special Magistrate advised that the above cases are for violations at 54 and 100 Seminola Blvd. It appears that the business at 54 Seminola Blvd had spread to 100 Seminola Blvd, which is an increase in a non - conforming use. The next case is for the building at 100 Seminola Blvd, when it appears that there is a business taking place. Photos were then described. The properties were recently joined by the property appraiser's office not in consultation with the City. Mr. Lingenfelter asked the Special Magistrate to find, based on evidence that these 2 code violations do in fact exist. Mr. Lingenfelter stated that the business owner was to provide a Business Tax Receipt from Seminole County, at the time of annexation. What the City was provided was a 2009 Business Tax Receipt. The City has not found that there was a Business Tax Receipt issued that was current and valid at the time of annexation, 6/24/ 2011. The Special Magistrate asked was there was any indication from Seminole County about how often the property owner needed to apply for a Business Tax receipt, was it annual? Was the one in 2009 still in effect, at time of annexation? Mr. Lingenfelter advised that Business Tax receipts in Seminole County are annual. Also, for properties that are within the City of Casselberry, notices are sent which is not required by State Statute. Robin McKinney, City's Attorney stated she had copies of the documents Mr. Lingenfelter was just speaking about, to enter into the record. Ms. McKinney entered into record a 4 page exhibit (City's exhibit 1), aerial photos that will be talked about, a 2 page exhibit (City's exhibit 2). The Special Magistrate asked about the 2 violations, one was whether the activity at 100 Seminola Blvd was going on at the of Incorporation, is that still considered moving forward with a violation? Ms. McKinney stated yes, in the street view photograph from 2011 is does not appear there that there was any activity, certainly not like what you see in the current photographs occurring at the property. The 2 Business Tax documents they City obtained from Seminole County show there was some sort of Business Tax issue in 2009, it indicates it was purged. The business name was Doberman Industrial tires and equipment, in the bottom right corner it shows reason for purge, out of business. The oob date, out of business date shows as 4/4/2009, this was all Seminole County could provide. If the owner was operating an auto use with repairs, in the district, prior to the annexation, then that would have been a permitted use. After the annexation the owner would have been legal non - conforming. Ms. McKinney advised that on the Business Tax issue, this is a separate location and under the City's code this owner would need a Business Tax Receipt for the 100 Seminola location. This is the warehouse. Mr. Lingenfelter described the photos that were entered into record. Can Gulerny, property owner of 54 Seminola Blvd, including 58 and 100 Seminola, stated this is one property. Mr. Gulerny stated 100 Seminola Blvd was sold to him from Seminole County Government to do business in this (house, shed) garage. He purchased this business only for this matter. Mr. Gulerny continued. The problem started in 2011 after annexation and he can't do anything on his property. The Special Magistrate asked the City about the three properties being combined. Mr. Lingenfelter stated that the Property Appraisers office has been splitting and combining properties without consulting the City in their County. Some headway has been made and now the Property Appraisers office is requiring, when these transaction happen, combining or splitting, that it be endorsed by the City that it may be in. If the City had the opportunity when he was asking the Property Appraisers office to combine so the Tax Collector only sends one bill, the City would have made the comment, that 4 1 P a g e