Loading...
5887 SW 70 ST_GREEN MISC CITY OF SOUT1j:Pk I ;•.•; ~ BUILDING AND-ZONING: ... ... . . . ..... . . . ENVIRONMENTAL 'REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATION . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. STREET ADDRESS OF JOB: � � � � 70'S j gC'r rNJ +!••• • 33t q3•• SOUTH MIAMI, FL .... ..... ... .... A :...: .'TEL NO. ./ 7, "��Q PROPERTY OWNER: / ADDRESS: STREET CITY STATE ZIP WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUSINESS OFFICE IRETAILSTORE OTHER: APARTMENT OR TOWNHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICE AUTO REPAIR UIIJN� (JIJ J i ('^lea PLEASE, BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED: WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? ►? <237.00 APPLICANT'S NAME: V I W � 1 � TEL NO. 1 70 �' 74f 4th ADDRESS: STREET _ CnY STATE ZIP AS THE APPLICANT, PLEASE, INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TENANT/LESSEE CONTRACTOR OTHER: OWNER OF THE BUSINESS ARCHITECT ENGINEER PLEASE, INDICATE CONTACT PERSON (ERPB's decision will be mailed to the contact person indicated below): PROPERTY OWNER /-�OBCRT �()RCS . APPLICANT J OTHER(provide name and address) v PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE ... ..... . . ... .... S V -N1•I.'� ONLY ONE . . . ..... . . . ... ... 15. Set of clear, color photographs of the entire building site or development containing the project AND the adjacentTopcgies vq epql side of the property (see below) . .. . ... .. . .... ... ..... .... INTERIOR LOT • • • • STREET Lo STREET _ a NEIGHBORING - _ =S©BJEfi ;j ; NEIGHBORING PROPERTY - PROPERTY NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY CORNER LOT STREET Rr No _^ _T NEIGHBORING PROPERTY s NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PROPERTY 16. Finished model at a scale not less than of 1" = 20'; all preliminary applications must include a block-out, study model (for nonresidential development of 5000 sq ft or more) 17. COMPLETED ERPB APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FEE (see other side: ERPB Application form) 3 =LD=NG Sc Z ON 3 NG DEPARTMENT_ NAME: ADDRESS: - jt4j REVENUE CODE CLASSIFICATION AKOUNT 321100 OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE RENEWAL 321200 OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE NEW 329100 PENALTIES ON OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 341940 CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES 341930 'CERTIFICATES OF USE/OCCUPANCY 341930 ELEVATION CERTIFICATES 322100 PERMITS 341910 REINSPECTION FEES 322200 COUNTY CODE COMPLIANCE FEE 341900 STATE RADON FEE 341200 ZONING HEARING FEES 341300 ERPH «- 369920 MISCELLANEOUS (MAPS, COPIES, ETC. ) 341400 MICROFILM jA TOTAL $ l� .2/24/92 RDBERTK. SWARTHOUT, INCORPORATED cityplanningconsultants 400 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 121 Boca Raton. Florida 33432-6023 (4011392-5800 (305}467-5800 November 15.1990 Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Dear Mayor McCann: This letter sets forth my views as a planner on how nonconforming uses should be regulated, particularly with respect to the questions raised by Mable A. Mobley v. City of South Miami. Should you wish, you can find my opinion summarized in the section of this letter headed "Conclusions" on page !?. Go directly to page ?if you are in a hurry. Read on from here if you wish to see my complete thoughts. My views are highly influenced by those of Norman Williams, Jr., Esquire. Mr. Williams is author of AInei7t:al7 Pl zmi 7,& Laa Lam-1 TSe Mild 117e.PCA�,?At7ww:,a six volume treatise published by Callaghan. 14m&7can Plziw7 7y Lan,deals With planning and zoning theory and case law; case law examples are drawn from throughout. the United States, including many from Florida. I have photocopied the most relevant. sections of l-lnejYh9j7 P1.917mk4 La w and attached them to this letter in case you Wish to review them directly. I�lStllJc:�Jt'71J _F3t?��T'BP1l L� ����l�c�Il1e, ��i'�'�IIGs?II�c?IIIJIIl�; L's��:• For the purpose of my discussion. I wish to distinguish between "legal nonconforming uses" and "illegal nonconforming uses." A "legal nonconforming use" Is a use which was permitted by the zoning ordinance when the use was originally- established, but which is not permitted by new zoning regulations which have been subsequently enacted. An "illegal nonconforming use" is a use which is not permitted by the current ordinance and was not permitted by the regulations in effect when it was originally established. When I refer to "nonconforming uses," I refer to "legal nonconforming uses unless the context clearly states otherwise. t Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 2 -IS1117C&017 1r3ehl'e'-l i'WwC-017.tblllll17,ff dIJCj 0t17t?1" i' 'OIICc?llfc7l"llllt? I also wish to distinguish between nonconforming uses and other nonconformities, such as nonconforming lot area or nonconforming setback. This letter discusses nonconforming uses, not other nonconformities. Special regulations are needed for situations involving nonconforming lot area, nonconforming set backs and other such nonconformities. PI11POSV Df 1 '�717C.'c7llfc717lllll �yt9tll4' Zoning law is unusual in that it permits one to do something that would otherwise be illegal just because one was doing it prior to it becoming illegal. General law does not grant such "grandfather" privilege. Zoning law grandfathers established nonconforming uses so as not.to place an unreasonable hardship on property rights. If nonconforming uses had to be terminated immediately upon enactment of an ordinance, individual property owners would have to bear an unreasonable high burden for the benefits which derive from zoning. ZOM,6 a, S17011161&964 the r7A97,9A9 E11M.117.9tIOD Of-%VOWC[117fVM.711;�; I LrI!;vs,' Nonconforming uses are be definition undesirable and the zoning authority should aim to eliminate them as fast as equitable treatment of existing property rights permits. It is for this reason that most zoning ordinances contain provisions that nonconforming uses which are damaged by calamity beyond a certain percentage ina), not be reestablished. Early zoning theory held that nonconforming uses not destroyed be calamity would gradually disappear because they were not permitted to expand and modernize and because their owner's would recognize that there are more appropriate places to do business. Accordingly, courts tended to protect nonconforming uses from compulsor}' termination requirements. However, since 1949 many courts have realized that nonconforming uses do not tend to disappear through normal attrition or private market action. Accordingly, mane courts, have approved compulsory termination of nonconforming uses after a period of amortization. One of the first. cases along these lines was Standard Oil Co. v. City of Tallahassee [87 F Supp 145(ND Fla 1949),affd 183 F2d 410(CA5, 1950),cert den 340 US 892(1950)]. This case involved a 1939 zoning requirement that Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 3 filling stations in an area near the state capital terminate after 10 years. The requirement was upheld and the court required the termination of the gas station. Porn-Po 61e,4 ppiv.ri h-q to CfJ�n;�e {?f'1��IJUC71IfCll'JJIIll� L'�s: In theory, there are four possible approaches to regulating changes in nonconforming uses. These approaches are: 1. A nonconforming use may be changed only to a conforming use. 2. A nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use, but only if the new use represents an upgrading. 3. A nonconforming use may be changed to any use permitted by the zoning district language pursuant to which it was originally established. 4. A nonconforming use may be changed to any use in the same broad category of uses, say from one type of industrial to another type of industrial or from one type of retail to another type of retail. The _Restijr1JT t?Applo.:Y h to C17zii7 e is,Ma,vt Carty t wt rvit17 the Pot}cx. to FJk Uw)mte. In my opinion, which I believe lVilliams shares, the first approach above, the most restrictive approach, is the only really effective way to eliminate nonconforming uses short of compulsory termination. There is simply no good reason to allow the establishment of a new nonconforming use just because an existing one becomes less profitable than the new one. The second approach above makes sense as a compromise measure, since it may encourage improvement by, lessening the degree of nonconformity. Approaches 3 and 4 above are without.justification in standard zoning theory. Approach 3 may not be too harinful if the zoning ordinance contains compulsory termination requirements. Compulsory termination requirements ensure the ultimate elimination of nonconforming uses regardless of private market. Mayor Cath) McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 4 actions. Therefore it, is less important to force termination rather than allowing change. .,biith 1 AZt771 1R'.eg Zll.V11bRS PPJ tr7117117 to 1V0J76V.171 b1777117,- L'se Chaj7gvs:' The South Miami zoning ordinance in effect prior to 1989 incorporated an approach somewhere between number 1 and number 2 with the following language: If no structural alterations are made, a nonconforming use of a building may be changed to another nonconforming use of a more restricted classification. [Section 9-3, page 72] The South Miami zoning ordinance enacted in October of 1989 also embraced an approach somewhere between number 1 and number 2 with the following slightly different. language: If no structural alterations are made, a nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use, provided that the new use is within a higher or more resti-ictive classification than the original use. [Section 4.8 (I) (1), page 136] It is important to note that the quoted language clearly does not authorize a change from one nonconforming use to an equally offensive nonconforming use or to a nonconforming use permit.ted by the district. language which originally authorized the initial nonconforming use. In fact, the language can only be read as prohibiting such change. �'V?sAIlt17v17k-?&?I7 ft71'i TIT t'sv A-,= Zft-flll the Sqm,- ISt17t: ' The City of South Miami may be presented with the argument that, when the current and former South Miami ordinances use the term "nonconforming use" they really mean any use permitted in the same district as an actual nonconforming use. In my view, such an argument is pure invention and without merit for the following reasons: Major Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 5 1. Neither passage quoted above from past and present South Miami zoning regulations is consistent with such an argument.. 2. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of "nonconforming use" in either the former ordinance [Section 10-1-2.71, page 821 or in the current ordinance [Section 2.3, page 171 to support such an argument.. 3. There is no other language anywhere else in either ordinance to support such an argument., at least no other language that I could find. 4. In the old ordinance, the language setting forth the "Uses Permitted" in each district indicates that the various uses listed are separate and distinct uses. Thus, Section 5-15-1 provides that the Intensive Use District accommodates ..those uses [note plural] of a light manufacturing and warehousing nature which are desirable and necessary..." Furthermore, Section 5-15-2 lists the "Uses [note plural again] Permitted." There is simply no way that this language is compatible with the notion that a "nonconforming use" is any use permitted in the district in which a particular nonconforming use was originally mapped. 5. In the new ordinance, there is the same use of the plural which indicates that each use mentioned is a separate and distinct use. Section 20-3.3 contains a permitted use schedule (Subsection E) and text that explains how it is to be interpreted. Throughout Section 20-3.3 the plural "uses" is employed to indicate that each type of use identified in the schedule is a separate use. There is simply no way that this language is compatible with the notion that. a "nonconforming use" is any use permitted in the district in which a particular nonconforming use was originally mapped. . t It�c71'T LZiFF 017 -!W-IJC.Ot7ft71'I17h7S- Z).W The standard zoning enabling act did not specify whether or not zoning ordinances were to allow changes from one nonconforming use to another, consequently most state enabling statutes do not Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 6 address this question. Insofar as I know, Florida's statutory law on zoning does not address this question. 1�'1o17Qda C�:i - I W 1017 1` 'C71JCOlJfo1-IrJ1ll�,Q L'se Chc�ll t?s' Williams identifies only two Florida cases which deal with a change from one nonconforming use to another. (Apparently- there have been no other change cases in Florida.) These two cases address the issue of change only indirectly, but they do indicate that not much in the way of change is permissible. Nothing in them can be read to support the notion that the right to continue a nonconforming use includes the right, to change a particular nonconforming use to any use permitted in the district which originally permitted a particular nonconforming use. Photocopies of these two decisions are attached to this letter and summarized below. The first of the two Florida change cases, Milling v. Berg, was primarily- concerned with injunctive relief from a nuisance. The issue of changing from one nonconforming use to another was raised because one of the parties argued that a change in a boat yard operation from working primarily on wooden boats to working primarily on steel boats was an impermissible change from one nonconforming use to another. The court held only that the relevant zoning ordinance provision allowing nonconforming uses to continue could reasonably be construed to apply to the defendant. The sec;und of L.lie Lwu Florida change cases, Marine ALLrac:tions, Inc;. v. City of St. Petersburg Beach, refers to the first decision as affirming the right of a previously existing business to change its mode of operating the same business as circumstances require. However, the second case goes on to say that this right does not mean that a legally- nonconforming aquarium can build a separate amusement park and describe it as an accessory to the nonconforming aquarium. There is no indication as to whether or not amusement parks were permitted by the repealed district. language that originally authorized the aquarium. Seeing that the change being litigated clearly, fell beyond permissible bounds, the court.dial not offer any statement.extending the right to change beyond the very limited right. granted by Milling, 1 e. the right.to change the mockof operation of the &,-?me .bzrvhe s Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,19901 Page 7 Awn.loiY lv Case L:-Yrr on 1 i?j7czallfol7JJky Ir:qe Ch jZgos- According to Williams, the case law outside of Florida clearly indicates that there is no inherent right to change one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. In fact, the case law suggests that there is no inherent or universal right to such a change even if the proposed new use is lei: harmful than the original nonconforming use. IfChan;,0 of L�-e Pe1mittet�! then jr�al .l v ectfon - egri)-Pw7ents r-l-e 1-'lolatez-l- In my view, a city would violate equal protection standards were it to grant the right to change a nonconforming use to any use permitted by the district language pursuant to which the nonconforming use was originally established. The city would be giving the owner of a specific nonconforming use a whole set of options that are not available to conforming property owners. It does not seem to me that the owners interest in a specific nonconforming use is a sufficient basis for treating him so much better than the vast majority- of property owners in the district.. 1Y'Ch-2n, e of L',se PeI777i a-1 117er7 -Rvk171 tO .3 Zonlllg T't?StIYI- While grandfathering specific nonconforming uses is justified to protect a specific, established and vested property right, there is no such justification for granting a property owner the right to all the uses once permitted in a given zoning district. Granting such a Eight would amount to granting a vested right in zoning. Zoning case law is very specific on the point that property- owners have no vested rights in a given zoning designation, but only to an actual established use or a development in progress. Be1Z-2170 of'Intelst T,--qt' In any planning or zoning question, planners and city officials should weigh the public benefit derived from a particular regulation against the private harm that the property owner is likely to suffer as a result.. If a particular regulation results in small public benefit but great private cost, then it may be inappropriate and unreasonable. If Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 8 a regulation is litigated, the court is likely to weigh the relative harm and benefit. Accordingly, nonconforming use regulations should not work a small public benefit in exchange for a great public harm. If the current South Miami prohibition on changing one nonconforming use to another except when there is a lessening of the nonconformity results in a property owner being unable to use a substantial building, and if there are a number of other nonconforming uses in the area so that there is little prospect that the overall character of the area will change to conforming, then there may be an improper balance of interest. The problem is most likely to occur when the property owner has a substantial building which is totally unsuitable for a conforming use and which cannot be made suitable by any reasonable action. There are at least t.w.o possible ways to solve this problem. First, the zoning ordinance can provide for termination of all nonconforming use after a suitable period of time for amortization of existing investments. Termination after amortization ensures that all nonconforming uses will be eliminated and the entire area will become conforming. Thus a reasonable balance between public objectives and private sacrifices will be established. The current. South Miami zoning ordinance does not provide for termination of nonconforming uses after a period of amortization. In fact, the South Miami Comprehensive Plan specifically states that amortization shall not be used (Land Use Element, Objective 1.1, page 1.8). Second, the zoning ordinance can provide more flexibility for changing nonconforming uses, but only when absolutely necessary to achieve a reasonable balance between public benefit and private sacrifice. The circumstances in which this additional flexibility, is permitted should be very limited. For example, this additional flexibility might apply only when there is a substantial investment in an existing building which could not reasonably be made to accommodate a conforming use (or a use which is less nonconforming than the original nonconforming use). The appropriate language could be built into the section on nonconformities with questions of facts left to administrative review. Review could be done by the staff or by the city council through the conditional use mechanism. It may be just as well to wait to make such an actjust.inent to the zoning ordinance until a situation arises that cannot otherwise be handled equitably. I have no idea whether or not the current. Mobly question is such a situation. Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15199(] Page 9 A zoning ordinance should seek to eliminate nonconforming uses. Courts in Florida and elsewhere recognize this; they hold the elimination of nonconforming uses to be a valid and desirable police power purpose. Permitting one nonconforming use to change to another nonconforming use tends to thwart this purpose. Such changes should not be allowed, except to the extent that they reduce the degree of nonconformity. Changes which reduce the degree of nonconformity can be permitted as a compromise between the proper desire to eliminate nonconforming uses altogether and the desire to achieve some improvement more quickly than might otherwise occur. This is the approach taken by the South Miami zoning ordinance now in effect and by the ordinance previously in effect.. There is absolutely nothing in the current South Miami zoning ordinance nor in its predecessor which supports the argument that the right to continue a nonconforming use includes the right to change such a use to any use permitted by the district language under which the actual nonconforming use was originally authorized. In fact, the current ordinance and the previous ordinance contain language to the opposite effect. There is nothing in the statutory and case law of Florida or most other states which supports the argument that a nonconforming use can be changed to any use permitted by the district language under which the actual nonconforming use was authorized. Just the opposite is true. The case law that does exist strongly favors the proposition that change need not be permitted and would in fact be unsound regulatory policy. The only right to change explicitly recognized by Florida case law is the right to change the mcxloor operating the Mme 7IISIIIZ?4ti,not the right to change the type of business. South Miami might consider expanding this limited right to change, but only in specific cases where necessary to ensure a reasonable balance between the public benefits and private costs of a regulation. The Mobley- case at hand may or may not be such a case. Mayor Cathy McCann City of South Miami November 15,1990 Page 10 I hope this opinion is helpful. Yours truly, ROBERT K. SWARTHOUT, INCORPORATED Robert K. Swarthout, AICP Attachments VOLUME 6 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS by PATRICK J. ROHAN, B.A., I.I.B., I.L.M., J.S.D. Dean and Professor of Law, St. John's University School of Low; Author: Powell on Real Property (rev. ed.); Condominium Low & Practice; Cooperative Housing; Real Estate Financing; Home Owner Associations B PUDs; Current Leasing Law and Techniques, Real Estate Tax Appeals Contributors Professor Bruce M. Kramer Texas Tech University School of Law Professor Thomas E. Roberts Wake Forest University School of Low Editors Ginger L. Griffin Member of the Missouri and Texas Bars John L. Schaub Member of the Florida and Georgia Bars Richard C. Younghouse Member of the New Jersey, New York. and Pennsyivonio Bars 1990 0 Matthew Bender WW Times Mirror u Books 41-61 NONCONFORMING USES § 41.03[2] substantially9 or entirely different10 from the original use. 9 See, e.g., Dearden v. City of Detroit, 70 Mich App 163, 245 NW2d 700, 703 0976)(the continuation of a nonconforming use must be substantially of the same size and same essential nature as the use existing at the time of passage of a valid zoning ordinance). See also: Massachusetts: Dobbs v. Bd. of Appeals of Northhampton, 339 Mass 684, 162 NE2d 32(1959)(beauty shop and grocery store were substantially different). New Hampshire: Town of Hampton v. Brust, 446 A2d 458 (1982)(trial court could reasonably have concluded that a penny arcade portion of a building could not be expanded into a section of the building that had been used as a gift shop,a use different from a penny arcade). New Jersey: Arkam Machine &-Tool Co. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 73 NJ Super 528, 180 A2d 348, 350(1962)(a nonconforming use is not restricted to the identi- cal particular use in existence at time of enactment of zoning ordinance, but em- braces the same or substantially similar uses within the zoning classification). to See. e.g., Susman v. Cleveland, 111 Ohio App 18, 162 NE2d 225 (1959)(diw mantling and wrecking automobiles and the sale of second-hand parts and scrap metal was a completely different use from that of storing and selling second-hand building materials; accordingly, the use of the premises for the latter purposes prior to enactment of the zoning ordinance conferred no right to use the property for the former purposes in violation of the ordinance). See also: Massachusetts: Everpure Ice Manufacturing Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of Lawrence, 324 Mass 433, 86 NE2d 906(1949). The court stated the general rule to be as fol- lows: "A lawful nonconforming use of land existing at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance which may be continued is substantially the same use to which the land was devoted when the ordinance became effective and not some other substantially different use unless the ordinance otherwise provides." 86 NE2d at 909. Missouri: Brown v. Gambrel, 358 Mo 192. 213 SW2d 931 (1948)(owners of building constructed for use as Public stable or riding academy spent 535,000 to alter and improve property without a permit and subsequently applied it to a non- conforming use as a public dance hall; court held that the change of use and a lat- eration of the building were unlawful). New Hampshire: Stevens v. Town of Rve, 448 A2d 426 (1982)(a change in a nonconforming use from an automobile garage into a "bath shop" and plumbing supplies showroom was an impermissible expansion, since it was an alteration of a building for a purpose or in a manner substantially different from the prior use). In Lynch v. Borough of Hillsdale, 136 NJL 129, 54 A2d 723 (1947), the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to allow a nonconforming use merely because it might be less obnoxious than the old use(54 A2d at 725-726):The court stated: "A preexisting non-conforming use may not be enlarged or radically modified (Re1.18-10!86 P'jb.845) NONCONFORMING USES § 6.37 'ally well-defined changed to a nonconforming fuel oil business, although both are e dissent in the commercial in character." A change from athletic exhibitions to furniture exhibitions is prohibited;" substitution of a paint- s generically the spraying shop for a tinsmith and woodworking shop is pro- ouse may not be scribed." :onforming, full-ser- Changes from one nonconforming use to another, even very was changed to an similar in character, have usually been disapproved. For exam- r with bars, a disco, ple, substitution of an automobile body shop for a garage was vent room, the new grocery l f held to be unlawful," as was a nt in kind and not g y store with gasoline eight of nonconform- pumps to a gasoline station." A change from stable to riding ,sort Hotels, Inc. v academy was disapproved,18 and a change from use of a dwelling rig Bd., 385 Mass for sleeping rooms to use for combination units with cooking 13 (1982), later app 6 NE2d 1070. facilities was found unlawfu1,19 as was a change from a hotel to a raking nonconform- home for retired persons.20 �)perty to store and on equipment may bag-cleaning industry); Berdan v Pa- property owner, whether on or off the :e as a nonconform- terson, 1 NJ 199, 62 A2d 680 (1948) premises, constituted an illegal expan- n without obtaining (textile plant to machine shop); Ossin- sion of his legally nonconforming use gni Constr. Co. v ing v Meredith, 275 App Div 850, 88 of on-premises manufacture of con- eals. 56 App Div 2d NYS2d 775 (1949) (storage of immo- crete bricks and blocks and sale of (1977, 2d Dept). bile equipment to storage of trailers); building materials. Vermont Brick & stored in a garage Margo Operating Corp. v Great Neck. Block. Inc. v Essex Junction, 135 Vt ore technologically 129 NYS2d 436 (1954, Sup) (nursery 481, 380 A2d 67 (1977). -lot substantial evi- school to day campy Application of 13. Everpure Ice Mfg. Co. v Board low that a personal Braunsdorf, 202 Misc 471, 111 NYS2d of Appeals. 324 )lass 433, 86 NE2d -lot remained con- 507 (1952) (manufacturing pianos to 906 (1949). continued noncon- making syrup); Bowen v Hider, 37 ng Bd. of Adjust- NYS2d 76 (1942, Sup) )stall-parking 14. Auditorium. Inc. v Board of Ad- a Cmwlth 485, 482 garage to open parking); Grushkin v justment. 47 Del 373. 91 A2d 528 Zoning Bd. of Appeals. 26 Conn Supp (1952, Sup). in a residential 457, 227 A2d 98 (1967) (business use 15. Wechter v Board of Appeals, 3 onforming newspa- to sale of liquor). Ill 2d 13, 119 NE2d 747 (1954). ce, and incidental Owner was properly enjoined from ses in such service, 16. Rupprecht v Draney, 137 NJL i right to maintain using a lot zoned residential as park- 564, 61 A2d 220 (1948), affd 1 NJ 407, pair shop. The rat- ing lot for customers of bar and 64 A2d 66. ntly different from lounge located on adjacent property. v Zoning Hearing No continuation of nonconforming use 17. Santoro v Zoning Bd. of Review. 187 (1981), affd 72 status where defendants use of lot 93 RI 68. 171 A2d 75 (1961). was of different quality and character A2d 784. 18. Berry v Recorders Court of istic than prior nonconforming use. West Orange, i24 NJL 385, 11 A2d ilvey, 206 Cal App New use was a iower classification 743 (1940), affd 125 NJL 273, 15 A2d qtr 200 (1962. 1st under ordinance, and was more objec- /58 to manufacture of tionable than prior use as a parking Comr. v Star Mar- lot for vehicles in connection with 19. Keene v Blood. 101 NH 466. 146 75. 84 NE2d 529 construction business and auto repair A2d 262 (1958). m to processing shop. Lake Charles v Frank, 350 So2d 20. State ex rel. Edmond Meanv 'er. 206 Minn 345, 233 (1977, La App 3d Cir). Hotel. Inc. v Seattle. 66 Wash 2d 329. (macaroni giant to The manufacture of concrete by the 402 P2d 486 (1965). 563 . , t x , § 6.37 AML.tICAN LAW OF ZONING facturing and packaging plant.'° The list of equally well-defined changes can be extended without any notable dissent in the changed to decisions." I commercial Change is proscribed although the new use is generically the furniture E same as the old." Thus, a nonconforming icehouse may not be spraying sl scribed. 10. Universal Holding Co. v North Where a nonconforming, full-ser- Changes Bergen, 55 NJ Super 103, 150 A2d 44 vice resort hotel was changed to an similar in c (1959). amusement center with bars, a disco, and an entertainment room, the new pie, substit'. 11. Kallay's Inc. v Katona, 152 uses were different in kind and not held to be Conn 546, 209 A2d 185 (1965) (restau- protected by the right of nonconform- rant serving liquor to a package ing use. Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v pumps t0 f store); Lathrop v Norwich, 111 Conn Alcoholic Licensing Bd., 385 Mass academy w£ 616, 151 A 183 (1930) (auto repair 205, 431 NE2d 213 (1982), later app for sleeping shop to gasoline station); Bowling 388 Mass 1013, 446 NE2d 1070. facilities wa Green v Miller, 335 SW2d 893, 87 ALR2d 1 (1960, Ky) (storage room to A landowner making nonconform- home for re sheet metal business); Adamsky v ing use of his property to store and sheet , 326 Mass business); 96 NE2d 236 service construction equipment may not remodel for use as a nonconform- bag-cleaning i (1950) (garage to storage of machinery ing gasoline station without obtaining terson, 1 NJ and equipment); Morris v Haledon, a variance. tats (textile plant t NJ Super 171, 93 A2d 781 (1952) agni Constr. Co. v ing v Meredit} (trade school to woodworking firm); Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 56 App Div 2d 845, 392 NYS2d 86(1977, 2d Dept). NYS2d 775 (1. Susman v Cleveland. 111 Ohio App bile equipment 18, 13 Ohio Ops 2d 378, 83 Ohio L Although items stored in a garage Margo O Abs 161, 162 NE2d 225 (1959, Cuya- are newer and more technologically perati advanced, this is not substantial evi- 129 NYS2d 43 hoga Co), app dismd for want of debat school to day q 171 Ohio St 164, 12 Ohio Ops 2d dence enough to show that a personal 203, 167 NE2d 927 (sale of second- storage use has not remained con- 507 (1 52) mE stant but is a discontinued noncon- 507 (1952) ImE hand building materials to automobile forming use. Zoning Bd. of Adjust- making syrup) salvage); Re Appeal of Lance, 399 Pa g � 311, 159 A2d 715 (1960) (grocery store ment v Libros, 85 Pa Cmwlth 485, 482 NYS2d 76 (19• to store selling beery Denver v Board A2d 1181 (1984). garage to open of of Adjustment, 31 Colo App 324, 505 Use of property in a residential Zoning Bd. d t 457' P2d 44 (1972) rgreenhouse to apart- district for a nonconforming newspa- e o A2d f ment); Powers v Building Inspector of per delivery service, and incidental to sale of liquor Barnstable. 363 Mass 648. 296 NE2d repair of vehicles uses in such service, Owner was F 491 (1973) (living quarters to offices): does not establish a right to maintain using a lot zonf Jasper v Michael A. Dolan. Inc.. 355 a motor vehicle repair shop. The lat- ing lot for ct Sass 17. 242 NE2d 540 (1968) (food ter use is significantly different from lounge located store selling beer and wine to same the former. Wvrock v Zoning Hearing No continuatior selling iiouon: Gilmore v Bever. 46 Bd-, 24 Pa D & C3d 187 (1981), affd 72 status where c App Div 2d 208. 361 NYS2d 739 Pa Cmwith 30, 455 A2d 784. was of different (1974. 3d Dept) (milk hauling to gen- 12. Los Altos v Silvey, 206 Cal App istic than prio: eral trucking). 2d 606. 24 Cal Rptr 200 (1962, 1st New use was Under an ordinance prohibiting en- Dist) (wine bottling to manufacture of under a than ncx largement or alteration of existing boats): Public Bldg. Comr. v Star Mar- lot than p walls. buildings, or structures, one ket Co., 324 Mass 75, 84 NE2d 529 lot for von bin cannot convert a blacksmith shop into (1949) (dairy farm to construction bur processing shop. a gasoline station. Earle v Shackle- plant): State v Miller, 206 Minn 345, 233(1977, La Al ford. 177 Ark 291. 6 SW2d 294 (1928). 288 NW 713 (1939) (macaroni plant to 562 The manufact- 41.03[21 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 41-60 ' abandonment or discontinuance.' [2]---Change of Use [a}—General Rule Against Unauthorized Change; Exceptions. As a general rule, a nonconforming use that exists at the time a zoning ordinance is enacted cannot be changed into a significantly different kind of nonconforming use." Thus, unless the ordinance provides otherwise, a nonconforming use cannot be changed if it is 7 S 6]infra. "See,e.g., Gilmore v. Beyer,46 A132d 208, 361 NYS2d 739(3d Dep't 1974)(an increase in the volume of use alone is not an improper extension; when, however, it is coupled with a qualitative change from a milk hauling business to a general trucking business, it is impermissible and may be enjoined.); Town of Aurora v. Kranz, 103 AD2d 1022, 478 NYS2d 218 (4th Dep't 1984), affd 63 NY2d 996, 483 NYS2d 1012,473 NE2d 262(1984)(plaintiff was entitled to enjoin defendants from conducting mud races for a fee, or any other commercial operations on its land that were deemed an improper extension of the prior nonconforming uses of horse shows and rodeos). See also: Connecticut. Hyatt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Norwalk, 163 Conn 379, 311 A2d 77(1972)(character of business changed). Kentucky.Feldman v. Hesch, 254 SW2d 914(Ky 1953)(change of truck storage business to repair and reconditioning of vehicles not allowed in residential zone). Louisiana:Redfearn v. Creppel,455 Sold 1356(1984). :Naryiand:County Council of Prince George's County v. E.L. Gardner, 293 Md 259, 443 A2d 114(1982)(county council had no authority to issue a special excep- tion to an applicant to operate a sand and gravel wet-processing facility at a loca- tion in which the applicant was operating a nonconforming surface mining sand and gravel facility, since the proposed wet-processing facility constituted a change in the nonconforming use, violative of the statutory scheme that prohibited such change). Massachusetts: Chilson v. Zoning l3d. of Appeal of Attleboro, 344 Mass 406, 182 NE2d 535(1962). New York: Phillips v. Vill. Oriskany, -57 A132d 110, 394 NYS2d 941 (4th Dep't 1977)(a change of property from a restaurant and soda fountain business to a tav- ern dispensing liquor constituted a change of use within meaning of zoning ordi- nance provision that nonconforming use of land could not he changed to another nonconforming use: such section, which was basis for zoning board's denial of variance to plaintiff, was held to be valid). (Ref 18-10,86 Puh.945) ( PAGE 41-61 ZONING & LAND USE CONTROLS 36 PAGE 41-61: ' ".'In Rendir v.Zoning Hearing Bd.,488 A.2d 391 (Pa.Commw. Ct. 1985), the court upheld the denial of a landowner's request for a variance to permit additional nonconforming uses of his property based upon his own prior nonconforming use of the property as a medical office. The owner's residence contained accessory professional offices for his medical practice that had legal nonconforming use status. He sought approval of the use of the office space for his son's securities business and his son-in-law's law practice. The court held that such use of the offices was not a lawful nonconforming use because it was clearly different from the owner's nonconforming use. Therefore, the use of the space for the son's and son-in-law's businesses was not protected as a valid continuation of the prior nonconforming use. Expansion of penny arcade prohibited:See Town of Hampton v. Brust,446 A.2d 458, 462 (N.H. 1982), holding that a trial court could reasonably have II concluded that a penny arcade portion of a building could not be expanded into a section of the building that had been a gift shop because it was "a use different from a penny arcade." 4 PAGE 41-66: i "•22 In Sherrill House, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Boston, 19 Mass. App. 274,473 N.E.2d 716(1985),the city zoning board of appeal granted a proper forming use In owner in a residential district permission to change his noncon from a hospital to a correctional facility. In Town of E. Lyme v. Waddington, 493 A.2d 903 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985 \I awo/ the court held that the amended zoning regulations barred the owners of a restaurant from selling liquor in their establishment, where there was another building in which alcoholic beverages were sold within 1,500 feet from that restaurant. The court further held that the applicable zoning regulation was the amended one and not the earlier regulation which was effective at the time of the previous administrative proceedings.The court noted that"[t]he zoning law or regulation in effect at the time of the decision of a court is controlling as opposed to that in effect when the proceedings were instituted or when the administrative agency entered its decision upon the application." Since there was no ambiguity in the applicable regulation, the court found that the restaurant owners were clearly in violation of the zoning ordinance. [b]—Authorized Change of Use PAGE 41-68: n.zs But see Jewell Junction v. Cunningham. 439 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1989), in which the city challenged a care facility that changed its operations from care of elderly mental patients to care of young mental patients. The facility operated under "grandfather" nonconforming use status. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the burden was on the city to prove that there was a violation of the ordinance by showing that the facility exceeded its nonconforming (Re1.30—V.6 Pub.845) t r a` ARTICLE IX NONCONFORMING USES 9-1 NONCONFORMING USE. OF LAND A use approved as a nonconforming use of land shall be considered a conforming use so long as the conditions of the approval are met. 9,2 NONCONFORMING SIGNS . Where a sign does not comply with the provision of these Regulations, such sign and supporting structures, other than a building, shall be removed not later than seven (7) years from July 27, 1976. No permits for additional signs shall be issued for any business on which there are any nonconforming signs solely serving said business,. ' except in shopping centers containing seven (7) or more acres. 9-3 NONCONFORMING USE OF BUILDINGS Except as otherwise provided herein, the lawful use of a building existing at the effective date of these Regulations may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions herein. If no structural alterations are made, a nonconforming use of a building }I may be changed to another nonconforming use of a more restricted classification. Whenever a conconforming use has been changed to a more restricted use or to a conforming use, such use shall not thereafter be changed to a less restricted use. The nonconforming use of a building may be hereafter extended throughout those parts of a building which were lawfully and manifestly arranged or designed for use at the time of passage. of these Regulations. 9-:4 No building or land, or portion thereof used in whole or in part, for a nonconforming use which remains idle or ur.used for a continuous period of ninety (90) days, whether or not the equipment or fixtures are removed, shall again be used, except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which such building or land is located. 9-5 DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING USE .. No building which has been damaged by any cause whatever to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of the building immediately prior to Revised 2/20/78 72 NONCONFORMING .USES- (Continued) .damage, shall be restored except in conformity with these Regulations and all rights as a nonconforming use are terminated. If a building is damaged by less than fifty (50) percent of the fair market value, it may be . . repaired or reconstructed and used as before the time of damage, provided that such repair or reconstruction is started within sixty (60) days of such happening and completed -within twelve .(12) months of the date of such .damage. 9-6 INTERMITTENT. OR ILLEGAL USE The casual, intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or buildings shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use and the existence of a nonconforming use on the part of a lot or tract shall not be construed to establish a nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract. 9-� EXISTENCE .OF.A NONCONFORMING USE The Building Official shall make an initial determina- tion of the existence- of a nonconforming use and in so doing may make use of affidavits and such investigations as he may determine to be necessary. In case of doubt and on a specific question raised, whether a noncon- forming use exists shall be a question of fact and shall be considered by the Planning Board after public' notice and hearing and in accordance with the rules of the Board. 9 4 BUILDINGS NONCONFORMING IN. HEIGHT, AREA OR BULK '- A building nonconforming only as to height, area, or bulk requirements may be altered or extended, provided such alteration or extension does not increase the degree of nonconformity in any respect. 9-9 A nonconforming use in violation of a provision of the Regulations, which these Regulations amend or replace, shall not be validated by the adoption of these Regu- lations unless it complies with the terms of these Regulations. SECTION 4.8 NONCONFORMING USES (b) If a nonconforming structure, or portion thereof, containing a nonconforming use becomes physically unsafe, or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance , and is declared by any authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not thereafter be restored, repaired or rebuilt except in conformity with district regulations and this Code . (4 ) Legalization of nonconforming Use (a) No presently illegal use shall be deemed to have been legalized unless such use falls within a use district where the actual use is a conforming use . (b) Uses not legalized by conformity shall remain nonconforming uses where recognized. (c ) A nonconforming use in violation of a provision of this Code shall not be validated by the adoption of this Code unless such use complies -with the terms of this Code. ( 5 ) A use approved as a nonconforming land use shall be considered a conforming use so long as the conditions of approval are met. ( 6 ) No building or _land.,) used for a nonconforming use,: which remain vacant and _unused for a continuous`*' period of six ( 6 ) months , ,whether -or- n-ot- fixtures are removed, shall again be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which such building or land is located. For a multi-unit , multi-tenant land or building which constitutes a nonconforming use, vacancy of one ( 1 ) or more units shall have no effect on the rights of the property owner under this section, unless seventy-five ( 75 ) percent or more of the gross floor area shall remain vacant and unused for more than six ( 6 ) months, after which period the vacant portion shall not again be used for a nonconforming purpose and the remaining portions of the land or structure shall be brought into conforming use within three ( 3 ) years . LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 134 Miami-Dade My Home Page 1 of 2 . � C M Home SY Show Me: Property Information Search By: .........................................................:..:.: Sele ct Item .................................. ..........::::::::::::::::::..:;::}::::::-::.: .r:>'<: :b i -. d Search ..�tK+tiri'nttitii:�i:�iiiiiiitt(.i!tit[^ii :•�:� :�:�:•:• •.v.v.�..,.�..... Results: R : : »: :::i:; i:>:>:»::> »::»»;::>::i i<: » : i::6 2 Property Y recor d(s)found for >> :: : » :a. ? Owner: mob le Y s>»s' �. Click on Folio select property.e �Y• >. » e r ':> 7- 4 Folio:+ 40L" i 002 1520 ::::::::::------:::::::::::::::._::::::::::::::::::::::::. ........................... :::::::.::::::::...........................:.::::::::::::::>:; 5 Owner:ALAN D MOBLEY TR ><<< » Address:5897 SW 69 ST :> >l -................................................................ 7 2016 is Folio:094`'��• LL��:.B�..cO :::: :::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::.:.::::::::::::: 6 Owner:ALAN D MOBLEY TR > >...::....:::::::::::,:,---..::: .: Address:5887 SW 70 ST ........................................................................................................ Folio:09 425 nr r G . ........................... .............. £3 .,}. 7 Owner:ALAN D MOBLEY T is Address:5875 SW 69 ST .::r:.. Folio:2442;>v- __ Owner:ALAN DALE& 8 JOSEFINA R MOBLEY Address:200 OCEAN LANE DR 708 Aerial Photography-AirPhoto USA 2004 0 30761 ft We appreciate your feedback,please take a minute to complete our saryet. 'v4v No• l?rcFg_t�E_n��MI. atic�.n I iS1X�iegrsbarAacd I pq�pEr�_��Ffi:nakzC iin�tp 11:5i.^.,g.h;t-Si?e l�f?�:;-t I i?^rn�t�:r2ciatY.l£'rivaty l.•tsc3;!ir.:er ................, J:::::::;;::::;: If you experience technical difficulties with the Property Information application, please click bare to let us know. E-mail your comments,questions and suggestions to Svc nstsr Web Site ®2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. .../propmap.asp?app=none&bytool=none&cmd=FINDOWNER&cmdTemp=FINDOWNER&tool=SELECT&searchtool=RESULT2/l/06 Miami-Dade My Home Page 1 of 2 _. ... ............ My Home }>}'. Show Me: I Property Information Search By: }:,'_�..•..."•�. , -.;x�}}:. : :•• �>a::.;:.:: �:{,..}.�.:s�, .. .::;:�{•:�}:•: i•< lei::. �.:{};' 4 4:n}'• .�,,.:. {:;;}:;:ySi i?;}:• ::•::>v}.$•:v♦ .tiff;:;.:'::'•- *:.:b}.•:j; ,::.�n,^ n.k %1 •{.:j.::;: Select Item � .�sa. ��� �•:. •., :>aw>::•>.,. .f {. :•:}i;}..... ..F,•:: ti`s.,. .:: :.. ' Goi,:r fe- : Fna- ra zr n �: ---- -- ......... .i:'�,'1,�';v^R4r.:::}:: ia;";::R:}:•}:•:::}:•::::•}::•:::£:•x:>>::;:$:}}:•}•}::;.':::::;:; •>::a;:a�,L`. kp,,, Di 1tal :r.,r.,h,..o,..a,h •20,. ...... ..:..::... ........... :;:; .}•.;:•., .F::i::•$iii} 4 is} is ti • ::.::.max:::.'•: v P Tr . n ri�,.f�l,t.r :c:>. E. Summa Details: - >:{::>::�� a: Folio No.: ,.47 i. 02fi 1 ,.0 �:�>:�' ,. i:tii.. .J: Property: 897 SW 69 ST ::: ,::<..>s3; >;;}:•x{{:;:::::::::::::::::::.;;•:: .: }` �+:}•:.:.;:;:.:};•:::»._. > ... :. :i;.i..x.;<;:.>:::a};:::::::; ii;;:}:::ii:}::::}:;::�>:;�::�>:�i:::::::i:.is�i>:•}:�i:�}:•}:}i:;<<:�>���:...:. Mailing LAN DMOBLEYTR •::.,•.::.::.:.. :. .: •s.�.;•:::::::1:::::::••:• ::::: �'::-...,,..,:,:::#>::>:�:r:�:.:;::_ .>;.>::�>`<%»:�:::��i• :«::::::"; (::.::.:., 4v:}i'}ij n-'i.: ;,, '::•.:t `:iii ......;i}>,} P O BOX 43-1 5 �.G•'?�.,.::::•}:• }::.:-: > f:?.�: .. ,£:.::�:is:�i:�i:;: :•}i: 4 8 SOUTH h`:�'x: s�iC::;; ,�•:•::.:.,}.:,• ;`C::}::}:,.q„z?�.»:• MIAMI FL :..:.�::..� .:::•:::is 324 - 3 1458 2 k: •ice:S:�::i Property Information: •�:»} .`xa .w Primary W. OOOINDUSTRIAL Zone: :� �ii�::�: ..':•::::::}`4:iGi;:;iiiii}:...':::-....::?.:•.i:•....-.•�}ii}}::•:•:ti•}}i::::i::isit:::i::::i::i::::::i::S::i::::is:::i'::}}}}}}:::.::::::::...n.. CLUC: "vh:�.vet"o'.''0::;j:::;:y:`:::::i';:•:} 036 HEAVY INDUSTRIALt{::bFz;:::i:}::}:::i::i::i:}:::isisi::ii««<:i:}<:ii:::>`:i::i':iii<:: }ua;.,:..:;;??.:::• ...:.::•:{:'::i:::::.::}>::::::::::::::.i•}:•}::•:fi:}:•}:::}isig:::}a`.•:{:}tk:isa;': ::i:ii:',`•::::-::.:}";".:ii Sfa -: OR LUMBERYARD .. :..,......; ,�•}•{{{{..: ... .,�.......:•:::::::.«::.....::::::::::::. .;}�;.<�. Beds/Baths: /0/ s ::: �:: ::::i'(: ';:;0:?:::: ::~.-.: •- :::;:itiri::i::::::::}}}:d}}}}}i}}}}}ii}}ii}i}:v}}i:i:;.:•n •ii:: .• .. }:{' Floors: 1 `. Living Units: ::�:::�:::::::�:?<?:_?:zi::s�::.:«:...:...,:.,:.::�:.:.:.:.:{.;>:.;;:.:.:.:.:<{:.- ..�: :i:::�<::... •.xes'3;`• dt Sq 1,583 Footage: I Aerial Photography-AirPhoto USA 2004 0 115 ft Lot Size: 10,800 SQ FT Year Built: 1971 ,y OWNSITE OF LARKINS PB. { We appreciate your feedback,please take a minute to complete our sarycy. Legal -105 LOTS 37-38&39 BLK Description: 11 LOT SIZE 75.000 X 144 OR 15041-1879 0591 4 �kY HORP I grope _)n q r ati.T.I? ?psr 7rx2 IS1;t e:Gl7barhaCQ I :.7,JEf -:G�rH`4;sa• Sale Information: Sale O/R: 126571748 � ^le I Lsi.^.g Ll,;�ii?'A I.nay t I ?'.^.enz p:.act'y.l f?rivoc_v I QisclatmgEr Sale Date: 10/1985 Sale Amount: 1$203,300 Assessment Information: If you experience technical difficulties with the Property Information application, Year: 2005 2004 please cics here to let us know. Land Value: $324,000 140,40 Building Value: $52,409 $49,100 E-mail your comments,questions and suggestions to y�;eh nstt2r Market Value: $376,409 189,50 Assessed Value: $376,409 189,50 otal Exemptions.. $0 $0 Web Site axable Value: $376,409 189,50 ®2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. .../propmap.asp?app=none&bytool=none&cmd=FINDFOLIO&cmdTemp=FINDOWNER&tool=SELECT&searchtool=RESULTS.2/1/06 Miami-Dade My Home Page 1 of 2 -r i .. . s - --'•e A J , •, }h My Home s,. :... " ''3b.:.Y'"' '' .--------------------------------------------------- Show Me: Property Information - Search By: Select Item .., �' --"' .•'• �...a �� ;:;,.: \.::•:2::,'<:o -•. .}?1.2,'aG:.^;.... ::. • i,.:::::::••.N;;ay.^•.m Text n. ..y A:....: r'Y A 04 i?i�Y.•�ii:;Sin Y:j::,.v;a: :i::\,:.;a,i: :ti:,:b�'i;:- :::W. :_. .;;::::;:•;:,•;ate.•: ::::.:..:..::;:::•:::.a::. Pr - sn::rais�,r�<:x Est:ns:to, ...::. ::.:.:... Summary Details. �::}., . �::t<:: <::::. �r'�.:.:�:a„s:.}•.;::. Folio No.: N-4025-028-2060 <...... �r. Property: 887 SW 70 ST is Pailing ALAN D MOBLEY TR :::•;>v::•:••:~,}:•:......-....:.:::.::. P O BOX 43-1458 SOUTH •:::::.:;:::•::::;:::,.., <>�<•}•w:• ; MIAMI FL a �•:. 3 1458 a• � • : :2 .. Property Information: �,;: :.;:�•,: :• .}::;,::.}:.::;.}:.>}::•;}.. ���<�;:#;::::;;;:`'V Primary w•. 000 INDUSTRIAL -• >:}.<:`::}>:ii:• ':' Zone: `;;«::,:::: •;�:;>'}��<::<�:�•••.;>?�: .E •`::%' i�'.`: 'Sidi#fist.: . .:i:i%:ii.:. ......:i:. CLUC: 039 MIXED USE- 1 „n: ;�..:::.:5•'s�4' cif 3:F. INDUSTRIAL >:;' •}:+1i :}•:.:}':•SS:::$MM;• XI-MI­/0 :::•}iiiii::• Floors: 1 �`s •:. <:>.•a:•.<?: Living nets: 0 •••� ::>:::.::::•:. ,.:::... ..::::. :: d1 Sq 5,196 Footage: Aerial Photography-AirPhoto USA 2004 0 129 ft Lot Size: 49,500 SO FT Year Built: 11968 5 54 40 TOWNSITE OF We appreciate your feedback,please take a minute to complete our sary-ev. LARKINS PB 2-105 LOTS 1 Legal THRU 6&LOTS 36 THRU 43 Description: BLK 16 LOT SIZE SITE 1Y!�=??E.I?rcFc t_Engr 3tic I?o�ar^�Yaxes VALUE OR 15041-1872 0591 I�.k a :gtibarhaed I pc ��r j-ckpt�szr iA^te I Lsi.^.g C)e;�Si? I Abut I Dhon2 0 2CYA�I f;rivaCK I i�cl.=.IY:Er ---------------- Sale Information: Sale O/R: : :? Sale Date: /1991 Sale Amount: 0 If you experience technical difficulties with the Property Information application, Assessment Information: please enck here to let us know. Year: 2005 2004 E-mail your comments,questions and suggestions to Wet)mrstz:_ Land Value: $1,237,500 $990,000 Building Value: $107,963 $107,963 Market Value: $1,345,463$1,097,963 Web site Assessed Value: $1,345,463$1,097,963 ®2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. Total Exemption $0 $0 axable Value: $1,345,463 1,097,96 .../propmap.asp?app=none&bytool=none&cmd=FINDFOLIO&cmdTemp=FINDOWNER&tool=SELECT&searchtool=RESULTS 2/1/06 Miami-Dade My Home Page 1 of 2 ..... .... ..._........... :-;';} My Home {..'.. � �� .a.._.�:, � BBB BB ' �pM••r�, c.e, ' +,\ \ r Show Me: Property Information „- ',}��} ..ttom. �:k�i:#����:• ..t Select Item . ,•ski:::::: :•:` :i;:;.. • #?•,',•�,• • :�.�>. �.. 1- (1 �h 'ate'# .i::? .....!. C'41c;r('tC r:G F'ho:^, r'a)i` :.'tai}:•.::• ?i::::::}:•}:o::::::::•}:•}:}}:.:}:•:;:;a}}::•::;:..;:+.. .. Dia tai.:r:,,c?l;h -tl:h4• 2?,.,, }...., z} w<• t>. . ,:.. t:. >< . i c:>: I.,.t.:nt:17r ri.. ..:::........... 4\vv .;..v. _ ��yy Summary Details: Folio No.: ..42a-028-1::0 Property: 875 SW 69 ST •::.i.:::.:.:..:.......:::.. :.......::.:...:.; : :.::::..;:� :}i;.:....�•.•}}iiiY Mailin g LAN D MOBLEY TR }:ii:;�i:;:j::;:$�:�i:�::;:.i}:i:i:.::,�wi$:.�i:::.;.;:}::::;i::::•;:::.:}v:,,::4..,:::i:::n:::?:.:;:k..:�'r.::-::_-:;:::;:;:::i:i:::�::i?•: >.:#:: :;:;; :•. •-:;}:.}.:.:...as:s:4::::•:.: P O BOX 43-1458 SOUTH •.: r:,;.•.:;,.,.,k.;.,; ; .:: .t• ;R` :;•<3:?�:;:>;;4�:}:�•'••�: MIAMI FL •:;i{4. ::i4• .Y:•}:•}:•i f'',`ii'•{i}ii'<:tivi�::. 3243-1458 .:�..:::}::::.:'• . +•'::\`ice}..... +..'•.�..�-:'•';::::. Property Information: ...; ....:....... ..........:. Primary ";:;;::::-. .::...,,•:�.:�.:•.,: ,.;: :':.: .... 000 INDUSTRIAL 0 ne: i:b}}:;•:•r.:..i:......:.:::.••.v:Yi:•iiiii}}�''riii):4:4;?;:.}:•}:.:;•}:;;:;.}:;•:::•�:•::iii:iii'r:;v:v:+, :•4.'.w7�?<f^,v,'"_^;.i•:w:x}:...:...:.. .:•.w:::n::•:::>T:v:::::::::rr:.:v::::::::::}::::•:::::•::.v::::n:v:::.::-.w:^n4i•. {:r 036 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL .;,�.}i: . ;�:T.3E::A�:�:•}:;;;:•>:•}:•:;;;•:;•}:•i>:-}:•}:•}:•::•:�:•}::•;}::.;•:.�::. :.::::::;:.:.:;;;:.:•;;:.,;�.•:e ::}•. ::: CLUC: ieeebf•:5ck�v:•'.}.o-. ..:•::•.::;:...:..: .........,..<.........:.:...:..............:..::w•.- OR LUMBER YARD - ......::;}:•}}>••::.:..:..::::: Beds/Baths: /0 :��;�••. �;k�>'' • .:• FlRL�egal 1 = '�z�i•�• ��4'>:; ' ''r' 984 Aerial Photography-AirPhoto USA 2004 0 115 ft 4,400 SO FT- 971 OWNSITE OF LARKINS PB :�#; We appreciate your feedback,please take a minute to complete our s aruey. 105 LOTS 40-41-42&43 Description: BLK 11 LOT SIZE 100.000 X ;,7y Hc:tk .l rcge t_Inf�r 3tii•I?o�sr^ T=xcs 144 OR 15041-1865 0591 4 ''- -= . l hbor ood I PmgE -'•�-`FSi:.fi42: Sale Information: J ia.^.?e I Lsi^g-i3::!Si��I�fx:?•wC I:>^Crl2�::cC7!5!1 I f°CYaS:Y I�i~;c3�ir:�t Sale O/R: Sale Date: 1511991 Sale Amount: 0 Assessment Information: If you experience technical difficulties with the Properly Information application, Year: 2005 2004 please ci_ca Kara to let us know. Land Value: $432,000 $201,600 Building Value: $54,374 $54,374 E-mail your comments,questions and suggestions to We-u-m4star Market Value: $486,374 $255,974 Assessed Value: $486,374 $255,974 Total Exemption $0 $0 Web Site [Taxable Value: $486,374 255,97 ©2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. .../propmap.asp?app=none&bytool=none&cmd=FINDFOLIO&cmdTemp=FINDOWNER&tool=SELECT&searchtool=RESULTS,2/1/06 SOLAR TINT QUALITY WINDOW TINTPNG l AUTO.RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL A MARINE 663.4663 OFFICE �... - - -�� _ �. d �:'�� u�" �, '��,4�� t:'. + 4 '� fix.. � �� _ -�- � `�,�� _ ,� _ ° CONTINENTAI. IGN y' MOTORS