CE 08/14/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

may be fine, but the legal non- conforming use would be allowed to exist but is it lapses for 90 days it will laps and will no longer be grandfathered. Also, legal non - conforming use cannot be expanded. Ms. McKinney City's Attorney advised that the application the owner completed for the Property Appraiser lot combination also says, at the bottom, they are not granting or certifying that this is ok by the City that it's just for tax purposes and to check with the City, this is in the packet as well, in bold letters. The Special Magistrate asked with Seminole County doing that, has no effect potential violations and Business Tax Receipt Ms. McKinney stated was correct, because when the non - conforming use was granted, they were separate; the non - conforming use was for 54 Seminola. So even though he has combined the lots, according to the property appraiser, for the tax bill, that doesn't grant an owner to expand their non- conforming use. What the City Code requires now is a 3 acre lot for this use, so he is keeping that non- conforming. Emily Gulerny stated they did not want to do a car business, only to clean cars. Ms. Gulerny stated she is the owner with her husband. Mr. Gulerny stated to combine the properties, 54 and 100 was an idea from Mrs. Jones. Ms. McKinney stated the City doesn't dispute what is in the document, what is not agreed with is the significance of it. The owner did go to the property appraiser and have the parcels combined, it's what is the legal effect of that. The bottom of the application is where is says, it does not affect what might be an appropriate use and they should contact the Planning Department. The owner was pointing to the middle that says in order to be combined the propertied have to have the same use but that does not allow him to expand a non - conforming use approval to another lot. The document just means he gets one tax bill. The Special Magistrate asked when the parcels are combined; it's for tax purposes only. The wording for parcel splits was read into record. The Special Magistrate asked the City how do we solve this. Does he come to the City to request a Business Tax receipt, but that would be denied because of the use. Ms. McKinney sated they have been discussing that are the permitted uses on 100 (Seminola) and there are some. Mr. Lingenfelter advised there is a list of permitted used for the property; it's not useless and would be happy to share with the property owner. A survey would be helpful so staff can figure the property line. Mr. Gulerny spoke about the property line. Mr. Lingenfelter advised that he was prepared for the facts and had not thought of a fine. FINDING OF FACT: The Special Magistrate made a finding that there is a violation in regards to 54 Seminola Blvd for increase in existing non - conforming use also whatever Business Tax receipt received by Seminole County had expired and was no long applicable. Since there no Business Tax Receipt for 100 Seminola Blvd, the Special Magistrate made a finding that there is a violation of City code, for 100 Seminola Blvd. If there is no compliance by 30 days or 9/28/2014 or a $25.00 per day per case will be imposed. .......... S Page