Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

August I0, 2002 --P~e 5 Velez, a neighbor, objected to the proposed building 'project-'and ~rgued there already e~sted a building on the adjoin{rig lot. The owners argued .the two lots were separate building sites because the walls separating the lots were built without a permit. The city sided with the owners .through. a "build~g site letter,' issued by the city staff which provided lot 22 was a Ie~timate site upon which to construct a residence. Velez pointed to the controlling statute, which seemed to state tots 21 and 22 constituted one building site. The statute provided, if a building or some other form of improvement existed on one' or more lots, such sites should be considered only one site, and no further building permits should be issued for additional buildings. The owners answered no building permits were issued for the e,-dsting struc- tures, and, thus, the statute did not apply. The lower court Upheld the city's decision, and Velez appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The owners were preclude'~ from building on the site, notwithstanding that no previous building permits were issued: The court rejected the contention [he statute did not apply to structures built without a permit. The court noted the neighborhood relied on the statute to maintain its ap- pearance and character, and permit issuance was not a factor. Further, the stat- ute provided a procedure to follow if one desired a permit in instances such as this. The owners could have applied to separate the lots into two building sites. Citation: ~elez v. City of Coral Gables, Court of Appeal of FZorida, 3rd Diaz., No. 3D0]-3263 (2002). see also: NicoII v. BatceT;' 668 So. 2d 989 (1996). Signs -- Owner wants to build billboard sign at location of tWo interstate highways Argued setback requirement did not apply because interstate was nora "street" MISSOIYRI (06/18/02) -- Cousin's Advertising leased property with the in- tention of constructing and maintaining, a V-shaped outdoor advertising sign. The exact location was at the location of two interstate hi~daways and about 40 feet from a residential area. Cousin's went to the codes director to determine if the proposed site was in violation of the e,'dsting 150-foot setback requirement. Cousin's also went to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to apply for a variance,, in the event the codes director ruled against the ~oject. The codes director decided the project would violate the setback require- ment at that location. Cousin's appealed the decimon to the BZA. The BZA affh-med the code director's decision and then turned to the variance applica- tion. The BZA voted 3-2 in favor of the vamance, but the statute required four favorable votes. 129