CE 07/10/2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Sorensen stated if it was just 100 Seminola coming in to apply for a Business Tax Receipt for vehicular sales it would be denied, because it's not three acres. The Special Magistrate asked is they would be eligible for a variance in terms of land use? Robin McKinney, City Attorney advised when he purchased this property, before the annexation, whether he was legally non - conforming or operating under the county's law, prior to the annexation, we don't know at this moment, we do not believe they have a Business Tax Receipt showing they were legally operating before the annexation. It's possible that if they were legal before the annexation, then once the City annexes that property, the legal non - conforming concept would apply and they could continue to operate. Ms. McKinney advised all the evidence was not there. The City does know that the owner applied to the Property Appraiser to combine the lots in 2014. This is show on the application that was submitted into evidence. Just from the fact that he combines the lots and then wants' to extend its use into 100 Seminola, that would not be legal. You cannot extend a non- conforming use. You can continue to operate as legal non - conforming, for businesses already in existence but you couldn't combine the lot and extend it. Mr. Sorensen added one more item; a map was submitted onto the exhibits of where 58 and 54 Seminola is, in relation to 100 Seminola. 54 Seminola is next to 100 Seminola; evidence of the Business Tax Receipt, he date on it is, November 6, 2013. When the Business for 54 Seminola went in on the existing non - conforming parcel, they are the ones, with that business that have expanded onto 100 Seminola. Ms. McKinley advised that this individuals business was a legal use under the County Ordinances, prior to the 2011 annexation, then there is not a violation for non - conforming use. A Business Tax Receipt for the 100 Seminola Location, which is a separate location and a Business Tax receipt is needed for each location. Ms. McKinney read section 6 of the annexation ordinance. Perhaps some missing infonnation is missing, did he have a Business Tax Receipt from Seminole County for his car use, prior to 2011. If so he should be entitled to get a Business Tax Receipt in Casselberry. Ms. McKinney advised the City requests a continuance until the next docket, in order to investigate whether there was a valid Business Tax Receipt with Seminole County prior to 2011. The Special Magistrate advised Mr. Gulerny that the City that is sounds like the City wanted to continue this hearing to another date (August 14, 2014) in order to clarify some of these issues. The Special Magistrate was inclined to grant the motion, unless he can tell the Special Magistrate he should not. FINDING OF FACT: The Special Magistrate granted the motion to continue these cases to the August 14, 2014 hearing date. The Order was for cases CE -14 -00319 and 14- 00500. No building permit. City Code Section 1 -4.3 • CE -14 -00391 1460 E. Altamonte Dr. Officer Hernandez advised the Special Magistrate advised that his case was for no building permit, City Code Section 1 -4.3. On March 27, 2014, Brenda Jones received an email from Tim Ippolito; Fire Marshal stating a wall was being built as well as electrical work and plans needed to be submitted for interior renovations. A notice of violation was sent on March 31, 2014 based on his email. A permit has been applied for but was denied. 4 Page