Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin a rarnily room addition ror which rhe pnor owners had obtained the proper building permits. The addition was locared about five reet away rrom the rear property line, which apparently violated the zoning ordinance in existence at that time it was built. The setback ordinance at the time provided that rront and rear setbacks had to be at least 14 reet. Notwithstanding the addi- tion's apparent violation of the zoning ordinance, the county issued two subsequent building permits to Castro to make repairs to the addition. In 2003, the count), added a section to its zoning code that required a 25-foot setback of both the. front and rear or residential structures and setbacks of five to seven and one-half reet on the sides within the zoning district in which Castro lived. This ordinance was applied retroactively and contained no provision for a grandfather clause. In 2004-more than 20 years after Castro purchased the townhouse-a code enforce- ment officer issued a warning to Castro ror illegally constructii"lg the ad- dition in violarion of the new section or the code. The matter went before the Miami-Dade building department: The department issued a report finding rhat the ramily room addition on Castro's property was completed prior to 1983 after the original own- ers had acquired the requisire permits, and the case had been opened iLl. error as no building violation existed. However, a rew months after the report was issued, the code enforcement officer cited Castro with "maintainin.g me addition" in violation or the required setbacks. After a hearing, the county code enforcement board affirmed the cita- tion. The record of the decision did not contain any ractual flIldings as to the validity or me permits that had been issued, the actual setback measurements of rhe propeny, or the applicable setback ordinance per- taining to rhis particular propeny. The only thiLl.g stated in the decision was thar the "preponderance of the evidence" established that Castro had violated the code. Castro challenged the decision of the board by requesting a court re- view. Castro argued that the principal or "equitable estoppel" should have precluded the board rrom enforcing the new setback requirements in the code againST his property because: the addition was already built when he bought the townhouse, and the prior owners had obtained all of the required permits ror the addition. The lower court denied rhe request, and Castro appealed. Decision: Judgment in favor of Castro. The scope or the appeals court's review was limited to whether the lovver court: 1) afforded procedural due process, and 2 ) applied the cor- rect law. Here, the appeals court had to determine ir the theory or equi- table estoppel was applied correctly. 4 128