06-01-2000 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing

Browse Search

' . • Page 3 of 5 F. When Kevin Blackwell asked for` a nonconforming use permit on Oct. 2,1990; outlot 420A was governed by Zoning Ordinance 1501 which replaced Zoning Ordinance 780. Ordinance 1501, Section 11-800(exfiibit F), states "... and that all existing violations of previous zoning ordinances .which would otherwise become non -conforming uses under this Ordinance but shall be considered as violations of this Ordinance in the same manner that they -were violations of prior zoning ordinances of said City of La Porte." or in plain English; a violation of Zoning Ordinance 780 is still a violation under Zoning Ordinance 1501. Conclusion: This proves: 1. - Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NEW under Zoning Ordinance 780 and did NOT pre -date Zoning Ordinance 780. 2. Kevin Blackwell's land uses were NOT nonconforming uses.They were direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 780 and also direct violations of Zoning Ordinance 1501. 3. All of -Kevin Blackwell's claims of a pre-existing non -conforming use are completely false. .2. Kevin Blackwell himself proved, in his letter received by the City Oct. 3,1990 that he did NOT qualify for the non conforming use permit he received. . The following documents are in Kevin Blackwell's City file. A. Exhibit G is -a 10-2-90 memo from -Community Development Director Joel Albrecht to Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong. It states in the. fast paragra h," The information presented to date suggests that Mr. Blackwell s operation is a legal nonconformng use that falls into the SIC Code Classification #0291.1 have asked Mr. Blackwell to furnish information as to 50% or more bf income being derived from his property." Two important corrections to page 1 of Joel Albrecht's letter are: a. The 2 acres containing 11 heifers is actually 1.05 acres as I recently measured it. b. The roping calf pen held roping calves only after Bobby Blackwell bought the property in1980, not before. Kevin Blackwell confirmed this fact in one of his two, 10-2-90 letters to the City attempting to support his nonconforming use claim. B. Exhibit H -is John Armstrong's response to Joel Albrecht. In the fourth paragraph John Armstron states, "You have indicated that the primary use of the property falls under SIC Code. Number �291 (General Farm -Primary Livestock Specialities). If in fact that is the case and if that Property has been so utilised since before the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, then it is clear that,. Mr. Blackwell has a legitimate pre-existing, non -conforming use, not subject to current Zoning Ordinance restrictions. However, ltre ,would caution -you toe sum that the SIC Code assigned to Mr. Blackwell's property is appropriate.....Before you can be sure that the property qualifies. as pre-existing, non -conforming, you must sadsfy..yourself that, these two tests as established in the SIC Code have been met.91 It is also clear in John Armstrong's directions that if Kevin Blackwell did not meet the SIC tests, then he did not have a non -conforming use. John Armstrong changed the actual SIC wonting in his definition of the tests to make them easier to meet Below is the exact definition from the Standards of Industrial Classification page 30. "0291 General Farms, Primarily livestock and Animal Specialities. Establishments deriving 50 % or more of their total value of sales of agricultural products from livestock and animal specialities and their products, but less than 50% from the products of any single three digit industry group." As you see John Armstrong's "or other agricultural products or other incidental revenue sources" is not in the SIC definition.