09-08-1988 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

Delia Claus Page 2 0 • • 11/10/88 ~~On August ~ 1988, Mrs. Claus once again applied for a building permit for reconstruction of her carport (See Exhibit F). This permit was denied by City Building Official, Ervin Griffith. On August 29, 19$8, Mrs. Claus filed an appeal of Mr. Griffith's j decision. As of the date this report was written, Mrs. Claus had submitted no information to the City other than the attached appeal application form. Analysis• __-As indicated on Exhibit F, Mrs. Claus' house was bui t on t`h.e. twenty five foot (25') front building line mandated by City ordinance. The carport indicated on the exhibit was non-conforming due to the fact that it extended beyond this line. ~ (Exhibit A was prep ra ed fro nam aerial photograph taken in 1-9$"0, prior to Hurricane Alicia.) ~~Section 4-~-201(3) of City Zoning Ordinance states that a mon-conforming structure damaged in excess of fifty percent (50%) of its value may~not be reconstructed except by a special exception, to ~be granted b the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Section 4-201(3) also states that determination of the degree of destruction shall be {determined b a licensed appraiser with the property owner having the burden of pr~o__i.~g (as Fer Section 4-201[4]) that the structure has not ~be-e-n damaged i~r excess of fifty percent (50%). Section 4-2 •1 (7) states that a non-conforming structure if abandoned for a_period of one hundred eighty (180) or more days loses its right to ~ontinue. In Staff's opinion failure to make application to rebuild a~ damaged non-conforming structure within one hundred e~,h~-1'-U-8.0.) days constitutes abandonment. As noted inJ he background section of this report, no permit application for r oce n=s.t.ruction of this carport was submitted with in the one (1) year period following its destruction. The applicant, by failure to make application within this period, forfeited her right (under Ordinance No. 7-8~0) to rebuild this structure. ~ Further, the applicant has failed, as required by Ordinance No. { 1-5~0~1; to p"rove that the destruction of this carport constitutes damage o,f less than fifty pe~c~nt (50%) of its value. Final-I y, the five ('5) years that have passed since the destruction o-f--this ca=r=p~o7=t-,---~-o~-stitutes abandonment in excess of one hundred and te~g h ~-5~--( 1-8-0-).-da_y_s~