HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraunter, AndrewLUO~[E~
ANDR
_W &
! OUISP'
TRAUTNER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Technical Services Supervisor
PlaDn%ing and Zoning Secretary~
Posting of Public Notice for Petition of:
The above Petition is scheduled for public hearing on the following
date:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .............................
PLANNING & ZONING ..............................
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Please implement the posting of public notice by Public Works
Before /~..~- 72 at the following location:
BOA-DOCS/BOA.AGN
ATTENTION: MIKE BOWERS
BOB FRANK
THIS SIGN TO BE TAKEN DOWN
DATE
SIGNATURE
PLEASE RETURN A SIGNED AND DATED COPY OF THIS TO SUE HARTZOG
GROWTh[ MANAGEMENT DIV. SO IT CAN BE ADDED TO THE FILE. ,THANK YOU.
TAYLOR S/D N 77.27' OF E 179' OF TRACT A
(ONE LOT NORTH OF 2929 N. OLD DIXIE HWY,
WEST SIDE OLD DIXIE 1/4 MI SOUTH OF
CHAMBERLIN BLV)
ANDREW & LOUISE TRAUTNER
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
Agent for
following
the 'St. Lucie County
describ d property:
TAYLOR ~/D N 77.27' OF
· do hereby certify that as
Board of Commissioners on the
E 179' OF TRACT A
(ONE LOT NORTH OF 2929 N. OLD DIXIE HWY,
WEST SI~E OLD DIXIE 1/4 MI SOUTH OF
CHAMBER~IN BLV)
ANDREW ~ LOUISE TRAUTNER
I did on , 19 , erect in a conspicuous place on this
property the following notice:
PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DETERMINING A MOBILE HOME AS A SINGLE-
FAMILY STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPERTY WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
ON 04/28/92 BEFORE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 3RD FLOOR ANNEX,
COMMISSION CHAMBERS. PETITION AVAILABLE ROOM 201.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Technical Services Supervisor
Planning and Zoning Secretar~
Posting of Public Notice for Petition of:
)"nd-
The above Petition is scheduled for public hearing on the following
date:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .............................
PLANNING & ZONING ..............................
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ...................
Please implement the posting of public notice by Public. Works
Before ¢' /~- 72 at the following location:
BOA-DOCS/BOA.AGN
MAST
REQUEST (
I ~ D ,~ ( 1428-T'k} I .....0001-010/9
"FRAUTNER~ ANDREW E & L.C~UiSE C
2929 N OLD DiXiE HWY
F'T' PIERCE ~ FL 54946-8T'20
PAGE:..' (01) OF' i TAX YEAR(C) 1992 VOID YIN(N~
PAF;.:ENT iD NO.
D C1. F,' r"F.'-?',c'
CLASS, USE (:]:ODE
S E C'T ! O N
"F 0 W N S H i P
RANGE
SPECIAL D!S'T
SUB)]} l V l S i ON
L. OAN
VA:CANT/! idPRV
V VAC SALE'i.
QUA-L / CODE
.,.¢~,~ k..iL '-'*L --"
0000 r,,o,-r ~:' .'-'""., ". .... ' ."
SALE a ~,,:m 4000
28 O.R. BOL%K 0640
.}>iFS L].
40E MAP ! 'D _i. 4/28S
OQC, O "FAX A rT'I.4 :"~':-'r:n H'~"v
42870 .1. ""
L. END
* _A. Nr:, (t,iARi-':ET) := 66.1. 0
,x- ,,.'-, MF',-?,OVEP..EN'T' =
* CL. ASS. ~iC.-F." =:
.'.- .: 43*, ,Fi -'.;';% -:;3 -;~, E'...L.' "-'::
-x.- E X E M P T i 0 N =
.................................................................... iS X F Pi P T I O N S
E:' 'z -~:: :-4 c:,'ir STATUS
%4.,~,~ Tp,~ T cJ. 'r * r-¢.,~ T,S .... ~ ..... r r:'; ~rT] r*¢",.-,r",~".'~'~' P.i "r "..F(] r*~ Ah, mr-
P o t I ' ' h'~ a r'25 '"""~ '
........ ,.,.j~, .1'3',6 P'~ *"¢~: 9aQ.r:, ~,/a, ,d -:::E¢-qul HOT nc:,
,/.~;,:,:-, , ,, Te.'-P, ,: ( ),; ),:..:,..~d:, ] . ~... ... PagE:
MAS]"
REQUEST (
".rRAUT'NER~ ANDREW E & LOUIS:E C
2929 OL.D DIXIE HWY
F'T P i EP;:C E, FL. 3494.6-8T%?.0
"::, o'::, ,':~ OLD BiX]ic: i--B-',,W CTY
D. 0. R ,, C ODE 0 .1_ (}0
CLASS. USE CC}i:)E
SECT l ON
TOWNSH i F'
RANC':]E
.................. LE"GAL./PROF'ERTY DE;SC ................ SF:'EC;iAL DZST
SLJBD i V i S I 0~"-,,
MAC)AN'T/i MPRV
i i MR SALE
E!UAL / CC.}DE
00 QUAL SAJ ....
DATE SOLD i 2/C-:2i85
.SALE AMT
.:::t::.: L..'. ['~;. B
5/4. S '"~ .... "-
· ,_--. iR. :'-'f-~.Gc. 1382
40E MAP 1'
· _ _ -, ¢"=' / .,E.,L%, CD
.1. 428'7'01 NOirES YES
II:::F'- "" ~ """4:}± 'r ~Iv~
* LAND (MAF,:::iET') =
.~ ~' ¥~::..R,F"--~ ,c:"4F-.?, '1" =: 26520
,,'<- CLASS. USES =
* EXEMPTION = 25000
* -FA X A BL.E =
................................................................................... E X EMi::'"F i ONS
' '""'"~'" ' ' W M _-
~::, ~.. ~,~ c:~'T' n 2 5000 ~
:'~ X EM?'T ST'ATUS
f ;f ~i.,'R'[zCT .L ;5 ........ u ,..,,., , 'l"O AND ......
a.*,~ THiS ..... '"'
L_GAL. ST, LiJC t E CC}LiNTY PRi3PER]'Y APPRA i SER TRAN'-PRO FUNC (
F;,'EQUEST ( ) -.,4. L. EGAi .... DESCRiPTiON SCF.:EEN * {i,'-i:;;/25/92 ].5~:31
I,,D. (:L428...-70:[-C~00].-05C)/5 ) PAGE (0~.) OF 01 TAX YEAR<C) !992 VOiD Y/N(N)
SE,C/T'WN/RNG 28/54S/40E PARCEL. 'i42F. FJ-701-OOC~i-O'.30/5 ACCC)LiNT' NO= IOZ<0.1. C:,i
(TAYLOR S/D F:'ROM NE COR TF-:,'ACT A.~TH :B 2'.'.:5 i}EEG 04- hiiN 46 SEC EE 80,.-..'.i, 4 }
(F:'T TO POB,~"T'H C;'.-;3NT S 25 DE']{.':.'-, 04 Mi N 46., SE{.:; E 84,29 F'T.~T'H S 80 'DE':]G )
(22 MiN 56 SEC W "-";_]'9 F'rT~TH N 24. DEG 50 MiN 06 SEC: W 8-'.=.3-,59 FTyTH N )
AGENDA - BOARD OF'~OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1992
9:00 A.M.
Petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class-A mobile home
as a single-family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential,
Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following described
property: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL )
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from time to time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose,
he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a-hearing will be sworn
in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to
crbss-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon
request. Written comments received in advance of the public
hearing will also be considered.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners on April 13, 1992. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie county, on April 7, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ HAVERT L. FEN~, CHAIRMAN
FILE NO. MH-92-001
The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of Tract A of
Taylqr S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the public
records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
The Stuart Nmvs and .....
The Port:St. Lucie News
(an editio, of The Stuart News)
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN: COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE:
Before the u.dersigned authority nppeared KATHY N.
PRITCHARD who on oath says that he/sl~e ACCTS REC
MANAGER of The Stuart Nexvs, and The l'(~rt St. l~ueie Nex~ks,
a daily .ewspaper Ptd)lished at Stuart in Marti. (3(~u~ity. Florida,
that the attached copy of advertisement, bei.g a
the n~atter of St. Lucie Land Development Code
in the Court, was l'ui~lished in The
Stuart News and The Port St. l~ucie News i. the issues of
~ril 7, 199'2
Affia.t furtller says that tile said Tile Stuart News and The
Port St. Lucie News is a ~mvspaper ptd)lished at Stuart, in said
Martin COUllty, Florida with offices and paid cireulati(m i.
Martin County, Florida, a.d St. Lucie County, Fl(.-ida and that
the said newspapers have heretofore been co.ti;~m(~usly ptd)lished.
in said Martin Cou.ty, Fl(~rida and distributed in Marti. County,
Florida a.d St. Ix~cie County, Florida, for a period of oue year
uext precedi.g the first publication of tim attached copy of
advertisen~e.t; and affiant further says that he/she has neither
paid nor pron~ised t-W perso., fir.~ or eorporati(). ~.v discount,
tel)ate, com.lission or refu.d for the pt.-pose of securi.g this
advertisemei~t for publieatio, i. the said ne~k~pal)er, The Stuart
News has l~ee~ entered as second class matter at tl~e post office
in 8tt art, Martin Ootmty. Florida a.d Ft. Pierce, St. lx~cie
C()u.ty, Fh.-ida a.d has been for a period of one year next
preceding the first ptd~lication of the attached copy of ....
advertisenlellt.~d~/'~' ~~-/-
Swot. to a.d subscribed be{ore me
this !~ dayof~
A.I). 19 ~-
(.Seal) -.
SI. LUCIE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBUC HEARING AGENDA
APRIL 28, 1992
TO WHOM IT ~/iA¥.CONCERN:
NOTICE is I~reby ~iv~. in ac-
c~n~ ~ ~ 11.00.03 ~
· e St. L~e ~ La~ De~lop-
(Agri~al,
zoni~ f~ ~e fol~'~crj~
The .o'h :77.27 f~-~bi~e east
179.0 ~t ~ Trad A of Taylor S/D
re~ord~ ia plm ~ok 9, ~ge 12 o~
the public r~ords of St Lucie Coun-
t, Horida.
south ~f C~in' ~uldvard ~n
the we~ side'of Old Dixie High-
. .: ~'~ .. . .
3). William & Carol ~laa f~ a
~riance ~o ~t ~9 coq~u~]on
of a siagJd Jamily res;d~ce wi~
Shoreline Prot~ioa ~dinance 'in
RS-3 ~ide~ial. Sing~ Family'- 3
du~a~ zoning fdr~e fotlo~ng d~
scri~ pra~: ....
record~ S/Dt~?~ ? L:: --
third fl~r ~Ce~ Ad~inis~atio~
28,1992~gb~i~g at 9~00 A.~
as ~n t~ a~ ~sible.
Fl~da Sl~es, ~ a ~rson d~id~
iD ~p~l any gedsioa made by
b~, ~gen~/'or Commission wi~ I
r~d ID any ma~ ~side~ a~
a m~ting ~ h~ring, he will n~ a
~d o~the pr~dings, and
for ~ put.se, he may ne~
~nsure t~J a v~bafim ~ord o~
)r~e~ings is mode. which rec~d
nciudes ~e re,many and evidence
u~n ~ich the ap~J is to
based.
BOARD
COUN~ CO~ISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, ~LORIDA
/S/Jl~ MINtX, CHAIR~N
~. ·
"A", A
ANDREW E & LOUISE TRAUTNER
2929 N OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8720
#1
CHRISTOGIOVANIS
C/OAPHRODITEMOULIS
3301 BROAD~AY (SOUTH~OURT)
RIVIERA BCH FL 33404-0000
#2
JOHN R &MILDREDB ROHM
163 CHAMBERLIN BV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#3
ROBERT & FLORA CRAMER
167 CHAMBERLINBV
FTPIERCE FL 34946-0000
#4
MADELINE C EBERT
171 CHAMBERLIN BV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#5
ROBERT TERRY
2825 N INDIAN R1VERDR
FTPIERCE FL 34950-0000
#6
SANDRA S KAPTIS
3350 S U S 1
ET PIERCE FL 34982-0000
#7
GEORGE P & ELAINE H PEED
2805 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#8
2801 N /NDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-0000
#9
ETHEL R RGGERS
2713 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#10
R C HAYNESWORTH
JACQUELINE H HAYAYESWORTH
P O BX 3572
FT PIERCE FL 34948-3572
#11
GELAINE A HUTCHINSON
SANDRALHI/IL/~INSON
2705 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FTPIERCE FL 34950
#12
DIANEROBERTSON
2701 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946
#13
RONALD E & CATHERINE ROHM
2627 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-1808
~14
2867 N OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946~8719
#15
DOROTRSf E BRUBACH
2879 OLD DIXIE HWY
FTPIERCE FL 34946-8719
JEFFREY FREDERICKS
6705 OCALAAV
FT PIERCE FL 34951-0000
JOHN & CATHERINE CALHOUN
2895 OLD DIXIE HWY
ET PIERCE FL 34946-8719
#18
JOHN H CALHOUN
3117 SENECA AV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-6651
#19
DOMINIC PROCINO
JOHN S EVANS
31 SOVEREIGN WAY
-FT PIERCE FL 34949-0000
#20
JAMES &NE, TX,IE BRINKLEY
l130B CARLTON CT
FT PIERCE FL 34949-3030
#21
BET15f & AT~,k~N CRESSEY
2117 TURNER RD
~T PIERCE FL 34946-8769
#22
L~O & WENDY IMES
2917 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8720
COUNTY ROADS
PROPERTY ACQUISITION DIV
2300 VIRGINIA AV
~T PIERCE FL 34982
JOHN ANDERSON, 513OT
3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112
MAILBOX 122
W PAIMI~ FL 33405
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD
1 MALAGA ST
ST AUGUSTINE FL 32084
ST LUCIEV/I%AGE
P O BX 3878
FT PIERCE FL 34948
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY
COMMISSION(ERS DEVELOPMENT
ADMIN IST a. TOR
June 5, 1992
TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP
Andrew E. Trautner
2929 Old Dixie Hi§hway
Ft. Pierce, FL 34946
Dear Mr. Trautner:
This letter is to confirm that on May 5, 1992 the Board of County
Commissioners for St. Lucie County, Florida, gave final approval to
your petition for determining a Class A Mobile Home as a detached
single family dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential Single Family
4 du/ac) zoning. , -
Ainformation.COpy of the recorded Resolution No. 92-087 is enclosed for your
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
.~LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JM: cb
Enc 1 osure
HAVERT L. FENN, District No. I · JUDY CULPEPPER. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. Disrr c~ No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER, District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5
County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Manogement: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-t 576
Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571
PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898
, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24::.-_
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33:~
34
35
36
37
38-'-
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46.~
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
:~.~ Fao
Doc Assump
Doc Yax $_
tnt Tax $,
Clerk C~rcul~ Court
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING A CLASS A MOBILE HOME AS
A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
IN RS-4 ZONING DISTRICT
IN ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St.
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
Luci e
1. Andrew E. Trautner presented a petition for a Class A
Mobile Home Permit in RS-4 (Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac)
Zoning District for the property described below.
2. On April 28, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the
petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
Lucie News and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500
feet of the subject property.
3. The Class A Mobile Home determination is consistent with
all elements of the~ St.. Lucie County Compr~hensiv? Plan and has
satisfied the standards of review set forth in Section 1i~05.02(D)
of the St~ Lucie County' Land Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St.. Lucie County , Florida:
~ iLA.f :~ ~ur~ant~o~section I'I: 0.5..-,.02 ::o'f :th~.St.. :. nuoie ~.CD~nt¥!L~nd-'
~ .ueve± op~ent.~.~C" ~o~.e; ~::.~ a. :-TCtas s '...A :~ Mobil ~:... Dete~mina~i~/~or.:
TT" ~ Andrew"E."~Trauther-~is hereby'_approved subjec~ t6'-"the
following condition: .
1.) The Mobile Home approved herein shall meet the
d
esi~n specifications as described within ~the
.~ .'. ' petitioners application'dated-March 24, 1992.~ The
· ~ ..... pitch of the roof shall be-altered to provide a
.. - roof slope °f 4: 12, as stated in said appiication;
futhermore, said alteration Shall comply with all
County CodeRequirements.
B.. The Class A Mobile'Home is to be located on the following
described property:
The North 77.27 Feet of the East 179.0
feet of Tract "A" of Taylor S/D, P.B. 9 PG
12, Official Records St. Lucie County
Florida.
(Location: Old Dixie Highway., Fort Pierce, FL. )
C. A copy of this resolution shall be placed on file with the
St. Lucie County Community Development Administrator.
ORR ,.r~.
7 9 2 3 ? 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21,--
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O ;'~
31"
32
33 ·
34
35
36
37~
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
After motion and second,
follows:
Chairman Havert L. Fenn
Vice-Chairman Jim Minix
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
Commissioner Jack Krieger
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner
the vote on this resolution was as
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 5th ~ay of .~-~ay , 1992.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SSI ONERS
ST. LUCIE' COUNTY,
· .APPROVED~
CORRECTN!
COU
MH92001.
TLV/djm/ddw
1183572
S1. LUCIF ~r;:;~;',' F.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST.~ LUCI E ~COUNTY, ,FLORI DA
REGULAR MINUTES
Date: April 28, 1992
Tape: 1., 2
convened: 9:15 a.m.
adjourned: 11:24 a.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Jim Minix, Jack Krieger, Havert
L. Fenn, Judy Culpepper, R. Dale Trefelner
Others Pres ent: -James Chisholm, County Admi nis trator; Tom
Kindred, Asst. County Administrator; Danny Crew, Asst. County
Administrator; Dan Kurek, Management/Budget Administrator; Rick
Howell, Utilities Administrator; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney;
Terry Virta , Community Development Administrator; Clifford
Crawford, Leisure Services Administrator; Ronald Brown, Public
Works Administrator; Salvador Nabong, County Engineer; Jack
Southard, Director Public Safety; Charles Bicht, 'Central Services
Director; Morris Adger, Port Director; Donna Trudo, Purchasing
Director; Douglas Dixon, Clerk of Circuit Court; Mark Cammarene,
G.M. Golf. Course; Julius Morris, Supervisor Contractor
Certification; W. Linsen, Sheriff, s Office~ A. Millie White,
Deputy C1 erk
/~ Resolution No__ .92-051
Reference was made to memorandum from Community Development
Administrator, addressed to the Board, dated April 15, 1992,
subject Resolution No. 92-081, a resolution approving the
petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class A Mobile Home as
a Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit in a RS-4 zoning-district.
The County Attorney reviewed the State Law regarding mobile homes
in single family area.
Com. Minix requested the County Attorney contact St. Lucie
Village, s attorney - to review the state law and the County'
position
Mr. Robert Rohm, 163 Chamberlain Blvd. Ft. Pierce, addres, se~
Board regarding the area, s opposition to the mobile home'
the
It was moved by Com. Trefelner, seconded by Com. Krieger to table
this item until next week's meeting so that the County Attorney
can research the law and return to the Board with the
information; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously.
E
N D A R E Q U E S
DATE
April 30, 1992
REGULAR May 5, 1992
REQUEST
PRESENTATION
SPECIAL CONSENT
PUBLIC WORK
HEARING XXX SESSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING
Consider approval of Draft Resolution #92-051, granting the
petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class A Mobile Home as
a single family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential, Single
Family 4du/ac) zoning.
Location: Old Dixie Highway, approximately one-quarter mile south
of Chamberlin Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution #92-051 if the County
Attorney determines that the mobile home would retain its Class A
designation once it has been structurally altered to provide a 4 to
12 roof pitch.
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
(SPECIFY IF BUDG~
PRESENTED BY~
CONCURRENCE:
James Vo' ~hishol~
County Administrator
ACCOUNT NUMBER 151000
~ENDMENT IS REQUIRED)
DEPARTMENT:COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE: 5/5/92
Adopted Res. No. 92~051 and
directed the Comm. Dev. Dept.
to inspect alterations made to the
roof.
/ Ja~s V. Chisholm
nty Administrator
Please proceed as approved by the Board.
A (~ E N D A
R E Q U E .~ T
DATE April 30, 1992
REGULAR May 5, 1992
REQUEST
PRESENTATION
SPECIAL CONSENT
PUBLIC WORK
HEARING XXX SESSION
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING
Consider approval of Draft Resolution #92-051, granting the
petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class A Mobile Home as
a single family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential Single
Family 4du/ac) zoning. '
Location: Old Dixie Highway, approximately'-one-quart~r mile south
of Chamberlin Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution #92-051 if the County
Attorney determines that the mobile home would retain its Class A
designation once it has been structurally altered to provide a 4 to
12 roof pitch.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER
(SPECIFY IF BUDGET AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED)
PRESENTED BY ~r ~~
~Y . ' ta
CONCURRENCE':
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
151000
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE:
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
COMMISSION REVIEW: MAY 5, 1992
RESOLUHION NO: 92-051
FILE NO.: MH-92-001
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
County Commission
FROM:
Development Administrator
DATE:
April 30, 1992
SUBJECT:
Draft Resolution #92-051 §ranting the petition of Andrew
E. Trautner to define a Class A Mobile Home.as a single
family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential,
Single Family 4 du/ac) zonin9.
The Board tabled this matter for one week at the April 28,
1992 Public Hearing. The matter was tabled so that the County
Attorney could research whether a Class A mobile home could retain
its HUD designation if it was structurally altered to meet local
requirements. Staff had recommended approval to the Board of the
petition as originally submitted.
Staff recommends that the Board approve Resolution 92-051 if
the County Attorney determines that the mobile home would retain
its Class A designation once it has been structurally altered to
provide a 4 to 12 roof pitch.
SUBMIT~]~D:
AC~mm~n~t~r~a~o~~lOpment
cc:
Commission Secretar~
Press/Public
File
TLV/cb
Resoluti/Memo.
COMMISSION REVIEW.. April 28, 1992
File Number: MH-92-001
MEMORANDUM
To:
County Commission
From:
Development Administrator
Date:
April 15, 1992
Subj eot:
Petition of Andrew.E. Trautner to define a Class A Mobile
Home as a Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit in a RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) Zoning District.
LOCATI ON:
EXISTING ZONING:
Old Dixie Highway, approximately one-
quarter mile south of Chamberlin Blvd.
RS - 4 (Residential, Single Family, 4
du/ac).
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
PARCEL SI ZE:
RU (Residential Urban, 5 du/ac).
. 32 acres.
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
UTILITY SERVICE:
TRANSPORTATI ON IMPACTS:
RS - 4 (Residential,
du/ac).
Single Family, 4
The surrounding Land Use Designation is
RU (Residential Urban, 5 du/ac max.), the
existing uses are residential and
undeveloped.
Station $4 (St. Lucie Blvd.) is
approximately ! mile west.
The subject property would be served by
a well and septic system.
RI GHT-OF-WAT
ADEQUACY:
Old Dixie Highway currently has
a right-of-way of thirty (30') feet.
The Ultimate right-of-way is sixty (60')
feet, therefore, an additional right-of-
way reservation may be required.
April 15, 1992
Page 2
Petition: Andrew E. Trautner
File No.: MH-92-001
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT
REQUIRED:
None.
A Certificate of Capacity.
COMMENTS:
The applicant is requesting authorization to install a mobile
home meeting the definition of a Class A Mobile Home as set forth
in Section 2.00.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development .Code.
If approved, the.petitioners mobile home would be modified to meet
the specifications as described within this petition. The dwelling
unit would be located on .32 acres with a setback of approximately
65 feet from Old Dixie Hwy,
County staff has reviewed the application and determined the
proposed unit to comply with the Standards For Review of a Class A
Mobile Home as set forth in Section 11.05. 02(D) of the St. Lucie
County Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval of this
petition subject to the condition that the roof be altered to
provide a roof slope of 4: 12, as stated in the petitioners
application.
If you have any question on this matter, please let us know.
SUBMITTED:
/3 CONCURRENCE:
Terry Vi~a~
Development Administrator
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
Attachment
TLV/DDW/ctm
MH9ZOO](DDW-BBC)
CC;
County Administrator
COunty Attorney
Pre~s/Public
Andrew Trautner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
RESOLUTION NO. 92-087
FILE NO.: MH-92-001
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING A CLASS A MOBILE HOME AS
A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
IN RS-4 ZONING DISTRICT
IN ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St.
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
Lucie
1. Andrew E. Trautner presented a petition for a Class A
Mobile Home Permit in RS-4 (Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac)
Zoning District for the property described below.
2. On April 28, 1992, this Board held a public hearin~ on the
petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
Lucie News and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500
feet of the subject property.
3. The Class A Mobile Home determination is consistent with
all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and has
satisfied the standards of review set forth in Section 11.05.02(D)
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County , Florida:
Pursuant to Section 11.05.02 of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code, a Class A Mobile Determination for
Andrew E. Trautner is hereby approved subject to the
following condition:
The Mobile Home approved herein shall meet the
design specifications as described within the
petitioners application dated March 24, 1992. The
pitch of the roof shall be altered to provide a
roof slope of 4: 12, ~as stated in said application.
The Class A Mobile Home is to be lo6~ted on the following
described property:
The North 77.27 Feet of the East 179.0
feet of Tract "A" of Taylor S/D, P.B. 9 PG
12, Official Records St. Lucie County_
Florida. ~
(Location: Old Dixie Highway., Fort Pierce, FL.)
C. A copy of this resolution shall be placed on file with the
St. Lucie County Community Development Administrator.
1
2
3 follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 ATTEST:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
After motion and second, the vote on this resolution was as
Chairman Havert L. Fenn
Vice-Chairman Jim Minix
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
Commissioner Jack Krieger
Commissioner ~ Dale Trefelner
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS
day of , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CLERK
BY
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MH92001.
TLV/djm/ddw
LUCITE
BLV
ROH~ CRAMER EBERT
;IOVANIS
C6
~RINKLEY
?ROCINO
CRESSEY \
CALHOUN
TERRY
A
ALLEN \,
,ON
ON
ROHM
xNDREW
LOU]~Sh
TF~AUTNE~F~
AGENDA- BOARD OF'C6~{Ty CO~ISSIONERS
APRIL 28, 1992
9:00 A.M.
Petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class-A mobile home
as a single-family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential,
SinGle Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following described
property: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Location: ApProximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL )
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from time to time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose,
he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn
in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to
cr~ss-examine any individual testifying, during a hearing upon'-
request. Written comments received in advance of the public
hearing will also be considered.
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners on April 13, 1992. LegaI notice was
published in the News Tribune. a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie county, on April 7. 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN
FILE NO. MH-92-O01
The north 77.27 feet of the east 179_0 feet of Tract A of
Tay~r S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the public
records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Ihe Stu- ...... -
.u t News and
ne Port St. L'uc e News
(an editio of The Stuart
iSTATF, OF FI,OI~ll)A
COUNTY OF MARTIN: COUNTY OF ST. LUC, IE:
Before tile uildersi.~ned authority appeared KATHY
PRITCHARD who o~ oath says that he/she accrs REC
_ MANAGER -of '['l~e Stuart Nexxus. and The Port St. l.ucie
:~ daily-ewspal>er [)tll)lished at Stuart i. Marti~ (.Inure(y, Fioi-ida,
that the attached copy of advertisement, bei.g a~
~blic ~ti~
iii the matter of
St. Lm~_ccie Land Devel~
C()ur£. was ['ui~listled ill T|le
['¢'tlLilirt News a~d The Port St. I.ueie News i. the issues of
.... : ~rit 7 ~992
Affia,~t further says that the said The Stuart Neu<s a,Kl The
l'ort ~t. I~ucie News is a ~[~vspaper pul>lisl~ed at Stuart, iu said
NLu t~u Cou~ty, florida with offices a~d paid circulatkn~
Martin Cou~ty, Florida, m~d St. Lucia Couuty, Flr,-idn a~d tlmt
the said -ewspapers have heretofore bee~ contiuuouslv pul>lished
b ior~da a~d distributed ii~
Florida a~d Bt. Lucia County, Floricla for a period of o~le year
" ~ext I~receding the first pul>licati{n~ of tim attached copy
advertiseu~e~t; aud affim~t further says that he/she has ~eitl~er
paid nor promised a~W perso~, firiti or eorporatio~ a,~y diseotnlt,
rebate, eomt~issi()~ or refu[ld for the purl)ose of secu[-i[~ this
advertisen~ei~t for publicatio~ i, the said ~exvspaper. 'l'i~e Stuart
News l~ts l~ee~, e~tered as see(md
~ . - class nmtter at tl,e l>(>st office
in Stuart g-lar/i~ Couilty, I lot ~da, atld Ft. Pierce, ~(l. l.t,cie
Couuty, Fl()rida a~ld Ires bee. for a pel-iod ()f olio yeltr :~ext
precedi~ tim first ptd~ticatim~ of the attacl~ed eOlB'
adve r t ise~ ~e~l il. -
Swot. to a.d subscribed be[ore me
$1. taCIt IlO^RD
Of COUNI? COMMI$$1ONB~
PUBLIC HF_ARIN(~ AGENDA
APRR 28. 1992
~o w.o~.
.CONcern:
dential, Sidle 'Family =. 4 .du/ac)
The n~h 77.27 ~:~f]the east
179.0 f~t ~ Trod A ~ Taylor S/D
I cec~d~ in plat bk 9, page 12 of
the public r<~ds of St. Lucia Coun-
t, Florida.
~ ~Locatlon: ~oxi~ejy ~ mite
sash of ~amMlia' Boulevard on
· e we~t side of Old Di3i~ High-
way). : ..... - -
3]. Wil~qm &. Carol D~an ~ a
~ariance ~o ~m~ Jhe
set~ck und& ~' ~t.- ~ie' Riv~
S~reline Prot~i~ ~dinance
RS-3 (R~i~MioI. Sin~e Family'- 3
du/o~ zoning [o~ ~e [~lowing
Lot ] 1.81~k I. Rai~ Forest
{[~Oion~ Wild~n~e South
cie C~n~ Commiss]~ Cham~r%
~hlrd fl~r ~ C~n~ Administration
~u~ding Anne~-2300 ~rginio Ave-
28, 1 ~92 ~inni~ O 9~0 A.M. or
as s~n ~er~ff~ as ~s~i~e.
PURSUANI ~O ~on 28~.0105.
to ap~l o~ d~sion ~de 6y ~ -
6~rd. agent, or c~ission with
res~ ~o aay moff~ conslder~ at
o m~ing or h~ring, he will ne~ a
r~ord ~ the ~ings. ond thor
[or such put,se, he may need to
ensure ~ho~ a v~botim record o{ the
proc~ings is ~de. ~h rec~d
includes t~ ~e~imony o~ evidence
upon which the ap~l k to ~
bo~d
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCtE COUNTY, FLOP~IDA
/S/JIM M1NIX, CHAIRMAN
Pyb~lA'p,~or. 7. 1992
ANDREW E & LOUISE TRAUTNER
2929 N OLD DIXIEHWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8720
CHRISTOGIOVANIS
C/OAPHRODITEMOULIS
3301 BRaY (SOUTH COURT)
RIVIERA BCH FL 33404-0000
%2
JOHN R &MILDREDBROHM
163 CHAMBERLINBV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#3
ROBERT & FLORACRAMER
167 CHAMBERLIN BV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8000
#4
MADELINE C EBERT
171 CHAMBERLINBV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#5
ROBERT TERRY
2825 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950-0000
#6
SANDRA S KAPTIS
3350 S U S 1
FT PIERCE FL 34982-0000
#7
GEORGE P & ELAINE H PEED
2805 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#8
CLAUDIA S~IN
2801 N INDIAN RIVERDR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-0000
#9
ETHEL R ROGERS
2713 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#10
R C HAYNE~WORTH
JACQUELINEHHAYNESWORTH
P O BX 3572
FT PIERCE FL 34948-3572
#11
GEIAINEAHUTCHINSON
SANDRALHUTCHINSON
2705 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FTPIERCE FL 34950
#12
DIANE ROBERTSON
2701 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946
#13
RONALDE & CATHERINE RO~
2627 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-1808
#14
F~RTHA AILf~
2867 N OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8719
#15
DOROTHY EBI~UBACH
2879 OLD DIXIEHWY
FTPIERCE FL 34946-8719
#16
JEFFREY FREDERICKS
6705 OCALAAV
FT PIERCE FL 34951-0000
#17
JOHN & CATHERINE CAI/{OUN
2895 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8719
#18
JOHN HCALHOUN
3117 SENECA AV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-6651
#19
DOMINIC PROCINO
JOHNS EVANS
31 SOVEREIGN k%Y
FT PIERCE FL 34949-0000
#20
JAMES &N~IW.IE BRINKLEY
ll30BCARLTONCT
F~ PIERCE FL 34949-3030
#21
BETTY & ALLEN CRESSEY
2117 TURNER RD
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8769
#22
LEO & WENDY IMES
2917 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8720
PROPERTY ACQUISITION DIV
2300 VIRGINIA AV
FT PIERCE FL 34982
JOHN ANDERSON, FDOT
3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112
MAILBOX 122
W PAIM BCH FL 33405
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD
1 MALAGA ST
ST AUGUSTINE FL 32084
ST LUCIE VILLAGE
P O BX 3878
FT PIERCE FL 34948
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
BUILDING CODES SUPERVISOR
DATE: 5/4/92
SUBJECT: HUD MOBILE HOMES
Spoke with Orville Cummings at HUD, 1-904-488-8600.
To his knowledge no one makes a 4/12 pitch roof~ double wides
that would meet the travel restrictions of 13'6" (largest size
allowable for moving on the roads). When they leave the factory
for shipment, they are certified complete.
It might ~be possible with a hinged roof to get it approved,
but he does not know of any.
He said, someone could enter into an agreement to have the
unit built in Georgia and ship it to Fla., and then have a
certified HUD engineer approve a 4/12 pitch roof. This would
require an inspection by HUD before it would be approved.
NOTE:
THE MAXIMUM PITCH THAT CAN. BE SHIPPED WITHOUT
HINGING IS 2 3/4 / 12.
I also'checked with Fleetwood Mobile Home Factory and received
the same information as was stated by the HUD representative.
cc:
Code Compliance Director
Zoning Supervisor
INTRA-OFFICE HEHORANDUM
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Daniel S. MCIntyre, County Attorney
Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney~
C.A. NO: 92-843
DATE: April 30, 1992
SUBJECT: Alteration of Certified Mobile Homes
Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the effect of
altering a Class "A" mobile home following certification that the
mobile home meets the Mobile Homes Construction and Safety
Standards of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Section 11.05.02.B.11 of the Land Development
Code requires that an applicant seeking to have a Class "A" mobile
home defined as a detached single-family dwelling must provide
proof that the mobile home has meet the HUD guidelines and the
standards of Section 320.823, Florida Statutes. It should be noted
that Section 320.823, Florida Statutes, requires any single-family
mobile home manufactured and/or sold in Florida be constructed
accordance with the HUD standards. The HUD standards for mobile
home construction permit a mobile home distributor or dealer to
modify a mobile home, but sale or lease of the mobile home is
prohibited if the 'alteration causes an imminent safety hazard or
'fails to conform to applicable federal standards. See 24 CFR
Section 3282.254. (Copy attached.) Therefore,' the pitch of a
mobile home may be altered after certification, but the roof must
still have to conform to the standards for mobile home roofs set
forth in 24 CFR Section 3280.305(h). (Copy attached.) I spoke
with John Stevens of the Office of M~.nufact~red Homes Certification
and Standards, a division of HUD, wh6' confirmed this and indicated
that the primary c6ncern in the event-a roof was altered would be
the effect upon the roof's load capacity. He also stated that as
a practical matter many dealers will not make alterations to a
mobile home after it is certified as meeting state and federal
guidelines because the manufacturer's warranty may be voided in
such instances.
Section 320.8245, Florida Statues, provides that a
manufacturer's warranty on an altered mobile home is voided as to
the altered item Unless the alteration is performed by a person
licensed by the county, or the state if no county licensing exists,
to perform such alterations. If a dealer performs the alteration,
the warranty responsibility for the altered item is transferred to
the dealer. The Department of Motor Vehicles is authorized to
promulgate regulations cOncerning, alterations "...which///~v
substantially ~mpalr the structural ~ntegr~ty or safety of th~//
mobile home." S~ction 320.8245(3), Florida Statutes. To date,t
such regulations have been issued. Although the statutes do not
address specifically the impact of alteration on a mobile home's
certification, Ronny Crum, an engineer with the Department of Motor
Vehicles, indicated to me that his department does not recertify
mobile homes following alteration because the manufacturer will no
longer stand behind a warranty for the mobile home. This practice
would appear to be in conflict with Section 320.8245 if the
alteration is performed by a qualified person.
In conclusion, it would appear that a mobile home may be
altered and still conform to HUD standards. Given that an altered
mobile home may still conform to HUD standards, it would appear
possible for a person to meet the requirements of Section
11.05.02.B.11 following the alteration.
HY/
Attachments
Copies To:
Community Development Administrator
Land Development Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION6RS
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Danie S. Mclntyre
Heather Young ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
James W. Lancaster, Jr. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Wendy White Camel ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Allison E. Bradice ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
April 30, 1992
Richard V. Neill, Jr., Esquire
Neill, Griffin, Jeffries & Lloyd
P. O. Box 1270
Fort Pierce, Florida 33454
RE: Class A Mobile Home Regulation
Dear Richard:
Your letter of April 24, 1992 addressed to Commissioner Jim
Minix was referred to this office for response.
At the April 28, 1992 meeting, the Board requested that I
provide you with a copy of the County's Class A Mobile Home
regulations along with an explanation as to the reasons the County
adopted these regulations. In this regard, I am enclosing a copy
of Section 11.05.02 of the County's Land Development Code along
with a copy of Section 320.8285, Florida Statutes (1991). I am
also enclosing copies of Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, Florida,
858 F.2d 15.21 (llth Cir 1988), Campbell v. Monroe County, 426 So.2d
1158 (Fla. '3rd DCA 1983) and Opinion of the Attorney General of the
State of Florida 87-37 (April 21, 1987) which may be of interest to
you.
S i~ce ~ely,
D S. MClntyre
County Attorney
DSM/caf
Enclosures
Copy to: Board of County Commissioners
HAVERT L. FENN. District No I · JUDY CULPEPPER, District No. 2 · JACK KRIEGER. District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JiM MINIX, District No. 5
County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2300 Virginia Avenue · 3rd Floor Admin. Annex · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (407) 468-1415
FAX (407) 468-1440 ® TDD (407) 468-1428
Secbion 11.05.01
B. SIGN PERMIT
The erection, alteration, reconstruction, or conversion of any sign
shall not be commenced without obtaining a Sign Permit from the
Community Development Administrator. In accordance with Section
9.00.00, no Sign Permit shall be issued for development without the
issuance of a concurrent Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
C. SEWAGE COMPLIANCE
1. Effect
No Certificate of Zoning Compliance or Building Permit shall
be issued by the Community Development Administrator for a
proposed development until either the St. Lucie County Public
Health Unit or the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation has approved a method of sewage disposal for that
development.
2. Procedure
Ail Building Permit applications shall be accompanied by a
scale .drawing of the building and a plot plan showing the
proposed sewage disposal system. Copies of these plans shall
be submitted to the St. Lucie County Public Health Unit or the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the
issuance of the appropriate sewage permit.
11.05.02 CLASS A MOBILE HOME PERd~ITS
ne
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
Any person desiring to have a Class A Mobile Home defined as a
detached single-family dwelling unit by the Board of County
Commissioners shall submit an application to the CommUnity
Developmen~ Administrator, in a form established by the
Administrat~, accompanied by a non-refundable application fee,
pursuant to Section 11.12.00.
B. APPLICATION CONTENTS
The application shall include the following information:
1. The applicant's name and address.
e
Legal description, street address, lot number and subdivision
name, if any, of the property upon which the Class A Mobile
Home is to be located.
3. Statement of ownership.
~ugust 1, 1990
XI-74
Section 11.05.02
Size of subject p~operty in square feet and acres.
Statement describing the type and dimensions of the Class A
Mobile Home proposed to be located on the property.
Elevations and photographs of all sides of the Class A Mobile
Home proposed to be located on the property.
A statement describing the exterior dimensions and roof slope
of the Class A Mobile Home proposed to be located on the
property.
10.
11.
A description of' the exterior finish of the Class A Mobile
Home, including exterior walls and roof.
A description of the skirting materials to be used.
A description of the dimensions of the Class A Mobile Home.
Proof that the Class A Mobile Home has met the Mobile Homes
Construction and Safety Standards of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the standards of Section
320.823, Florida Statutes.
12.
A site plan drawn to scale illustrating the proposed use and
including the following:
13.
Ce
a. Location of the property by lot number, block'number and
street address, if any.
b. The:location of trees of four (4") inches diameter or
greater, other natural features of unique or significant
character, and proposed landscaping within fifty (50')
feet of th~ proposed location for the Class A Mobile
Home.
c. T~ dimensions of the lot or parcel of land on which the
Class A Mobile Home is to be located.
d. The location of the proposed Class A Mobile Home on the
property, including all setback information.
A schematic design of the Class A Mobile Home showing the
roof, skirtings, and other improvements.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF CLASS A MOBILE HOME PERMIT
.APPLICATIONS
Within twenty
~.submitted, the
A~/gust 1, 1990
(20) days after an application has been
Communiny Developmen~ Administrator shall
XI-75
Section 11.05.02
determine whether the application is complete. If the
Administrator determines the application is not complete, he
shall send a written statement specifying the application's
deficiencies to the applicant by mail. The Administrator
shall take no further action on the application unless the
deficiencies are remedied.
Within thirty (30) days after the Community Development
Administrator determines the application is complete, he shall
review the application, and shall determine whether the
proposal complies with the definition of a detached single-
family dwelling unit.
Following the determination of compliance, the Community
Development Administrator shall place the application for the
determination of the Class A Mobile Home as a,detached single-
family dwelling unit on the agenda of the next available
regular Board of County Commissioners meeting, in accordance
with the procedures in Section 11.00.03.
The public hearing held on the application shall be in
accordance with Section 11.00.04. In determining whether the
Class A Mobile Home meets the definition of a detached
single-family dwelling unit, the Board of County Commissioners
shall consider the standards in this subsection. Within a
reasonable time of the conclusion of the public hearing, the
Board of County Commissioners shall ma~e a.determination as to
whether the application meets the definition of 'a detached
single-family dwelling unit in the form specified in Section
11.05.02(D).
De
Notification of the Board of County Commissioners' decision
shall be mailed to the petitioner and filed with the
Community Development Administrator in accordance with Section
11.00.04.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
In determining'~hether a Class A Mobile Home'meets the definitions
of detached single-family dwelling unit, the Board of County
Commissioners shall conSider the exterior dimensions, the exterior
finish of the roof and walls, and the skirting of the mobile home.
Before a Class ~ Mobile Home will be defined as a detached
single-family dwelling unit, the Board of County Commissioners must
determine that:
1. Minimum Width of Main Body
The minimum horizontal dimension of the main body of the
mobile home as assembled on the site is not less than twenty
August 1, 1990 XI-76
Section 11.05.02
(20) feet, as measured across the narrowest portion, except
that in the Agricultural Residential (AR-l), Agricultural-1
(AG-l), Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5) and Agricultural-.5 (AG-5),
Zoning Districts, no minimumhorizontal dimension shall apply.
Minimum Roof Pitch; Minimum Distance, Eaves to Ridge
The pitch of the main roof is not less than one (1) foot of
rise for each four (4) feet of horizontal run and the minimum
distance from eave to ridge is one-half (1/2) the minimum
horizontal dimension.
3. Roofing Material~
e
The roofing material used is similar in texture, color and
appearance to that of detached single-family dwelling units in
the same zoning district in which it is to be located.
Exterior Finish; Light Reflection
The materials used for the exterior finish and skirting are
similar in texture, color, and materials to detached
single,family dwelling units in the same zoning district in
which it is to be located, and are applied in such a manner as
to make the Class A Mobile Home similar in appearance with
surrounding detached single-family dwelling units. Reflection
from the exterior shall not be greater than from siding coated
with clear, white, gloss exterior-enamel.
11.05.03 DRIVEWAY PERMITS
A. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
Any person seeking to construct or reconstruct any curb cut or
driveway on any COunty maintained public road in the unincorporated
areas of-the Cq~nty shall submit a permit application to-the County
Engineer accompanied by a non-refundable application fee pursuant
to Section 11.I7..00.
B. APPLICATION CONTENTS
Any person seekin~a driveway permit shall submit the original and
one (1) copy of an application to the County Engineer. The
application shall include the following information:
Name and address of the owner of the property on which the
driveway is proposed to be located.
Except for one- and two-family residences, a set of detailed
plans for the proposed driveway or curb cu~ (including the
site plan if applicable).
August 1, 1990
XI-77
'esponsk fll
ealer ~'f tr,~
the
e entitled
-' and att,
on perforrne
owner or
ranty as
.~d cleany
.ty that the
~em if the ~
~er than a
}ment shall
facturer.
~ARTME
;ate rules
;h define tb
~ made
¢gulate
;ubstar
qe mobile
ED PERS~
a person
~creation~
ounty licer
~evant ~o
qg or ocr
~y certif
~odi'
~ determir
'e requisite
¢ient to
Charged
¢alid for
:Ret IOCa
ncy or
De Vahd
; or compet,
~ which
3eten
merit of ce~
n a review of
~equac~
or modifk
all find
mai licens~
~1-318: ss
~-' 47
:-gree of
e homes, E
developed
with COde
-~sonable ru~
for the
3tlon.
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES
trtment inspec,. .:./ snail make unarm ounceo
ts or take any other appropn-
which assures compliance with the code.
Mobile home manufacturers and sealers snail be
a fee for spec~a~ mspechons, including, but not
plant approvals, 100 percenl plant insoec-
frequency inspections, remspections
cial consumer complaint investigations as
by a manufacture- or dealer or as may be
by the department
PT'ne departmenl shall aetermme fees for special
; and for the seal authonzed under s. 320.827
sufficient to cover the cost of inspection and
under this section. Fees collected shall
into the General Revenue Fund.
da. 74-169; s. 39, ch 77-357: s 10, ch. 80-217 s. 200. cn 81-259
s. 10, ch. 82-66. ss 6 19, 20. ch 88-147
effective Oclober 1 1998 Dy s. 20. cn 88-147. ana schedules
w ll:~,~kanl to s. 11.61
Recreational vehicle inspection._
~ order to ensure the highest degree of quality
tin the construchon of new recreational vehicles
'ensure the safe condition of usec recreational
each new or use(:] recreational vehicle sold in
shall be respected by the departmenl or
, a private firm. person, or agency approved
department to COnduct such inspections.
recreational vehicle dealers may, upon
of the department, ir~spect used recreational
inventory and offered for sale Such approval
inspections shall be pursuant to procedures
by the depar!ment which assure compliance
provisions. The deplartment may adoot rea-
chapter 120 for the implemen-
of this ;nspection.
~spectors Shall make unannounced
Ig plants or ~ake any other appropri-
assures compliance with the code.
vehic, e mar~ufacturers and dealers
led a fee for special inspections, including,
to, plant approvals, 100 percent plant
frequency, inspections reinspec-
consumer co~plaint investigations as
by a manufacturer o~- dealer or as may be
the depa'dment.
)artment shall determine fees for special
for the seal authorized under s. 320.827
to cover thelcost of inspection and
under thi~- sectioh Fees collected shall
into the GeneraI R~venue Fund.
80-217: s. 2, ch 81~-3t8: ss. 7. 19.20, ch. 88-147 s 3, ch
I, 1998.'by s ~0. cn 88-1a7 aha scneoule~2
11.61
Seal or label; procedures for issuance;
requirements.~N¢) dealer shall sol, or
in this state any new rpobile home or recre-
or used recreational vehicle manufac-
1, 1968, unte~ the mobile home or
bears a seal or lobe and the certifi-
~ urer, or by ~ne dealer in the case
recreational vehicle, th~[ the mobile home or
-~' "- Ch. 320
or exceeas the appropriate code. Any module home
oeanng the ms,gnma of approval pursuant to thCs section
shall De deemed to comply with the requirements of all
¢ocal government ordinances or rules which govern con-
struct~on, and no mobile home bearing the de~)artment
insignia of approval shall be ~n any way modified except
in compliance with this chapter. Seals or labels may be
~ssued Dy the department when applied for wKh an affi-
cavil certifying thal the dealer or manufacl urer applying
will not attach a seal or label to any new mobile home
or new or used recreational vehicle that does not meet
or exceed the appropnate Code. No mobile home or rec.
reational veh¢cle may De manufactured m this state
unless it bears a seal or label and certification that the
moDde nome or recreational veniote meets or exceeds
the code. The seal or label for each mobile home or rec-
reational vehicle shall be displayed in a manner [o De
prescribed Dy the department.
Histor"/,--s 8 ch 67-350 s. 7. ch 75-203, s 40. ch. 77-357: s 2. ch. 81-319:
s 11, ch 82-6E. ss 19.20. Ct' 88-147
~Nole---Repealed effective Oc;~ober 1 1998. by s. 20, ch 88-147. aha scr~eou~ed
~320.8285 Onsite inspection.-
(1) On or before January 1. 1975 each county in this
state shal prepare and adopt a p~an providing for an
onsite inspection of eacr] new mobile home located
within such county. The onsite inspection shall ensure
compliance with state and local building codes, ordi.
nonces, and regulations regarding SUCh functions as
blocking and leve ins tie-downs utility connections,
conversions of appliances, and external improvements
on the mobile home. If a mobile home is manufactJred
m conformity with the code, as established in s. 320.823,
a county may not require modification of the mobile
home in order to comply with local tie-down regulations.
(2) When a county has not prepared and adopted a
plan providing for ons¢te inspection by January 1, 1975,
the department shall Prepare a minimum onsite inspec-
tion plan for such county. The department may promul-
gate reasonable rules and regulations DursuanI to ChaD-
ter 120 in preparing and enforcing SuCh a minimum
onsite inspection D~an.
(3) Each county may designate the persons who are
to perform the onsite inspection. If a county does not so
designate, the department shall designate the persons
who are to perform the on s~te inspection. No person
shall be.'uesignated to perform onsite nspections unless
_such persbn ~s competent in the areas of mobile home
blocking and leveling, tie-downs, utility connections,
conversions of appliances, and external improvements.
Pursuanl to' the onsite inspecbon, each mobile home
shall De issued a certificate of occuoancy if the mopile
home complies with state and local Puilding codes, ordi-
nances, and regulations regarding such functions as
blocking and leveling, tie-downs ut lit .,-~
conversion of appliances an~ ~'---,'- y connections,
the mobile home. ' '-' ~"~'~ ~mprovements to
(4) Fees for onsite inspections and certificates of
occL:,pancy ct mobile homes shall be reasonable for the
serwces performed. A guideline for fee schedules sha'
be issued by the department.
(5) The Department of Highway Safety and Motor
~ to whicn the s:eal is attached meets Vehicles shai anforce every provision of this secbon and
539
i
_ MOTOR VEHICLE LiCENS
ES
the reguiat,ons adopted po r~-'"~t hereto, excep~ that
, (3) Any manufaci~ ¢.;; dealer, or inspector Wh.- "~~:'departmen
lates or tads Io compl~ith any of the provisi-
320.822-320.862 or any of the r.t~
~epartment is guilty ~fa misd~;a~;~P~1~bY ~ ~;~e r~
degree, punishable as provided in s 77~ n~e
~75.083, provided such violation is not also ~,.~ t ~::~ ~re¢~/~
me National Mobile Home COn~ ....
Standards Act of 1974 or any r~:~;;;t~
order issued thereunder. ' ~ ~L-'~.~ ~ . -
Histo~.--s. 12, ch 67.3~; ss. 24 35 ch 69- 06' s
77-357;s, 5, ch 78-22 s 12 ch 80~7'. P ~..'~.'~" ¢~-99 s~. ~:,-~ k Chnm
~ 4~.oh 9~-~4 ...................... ~ ~g.~ ~ ~... ~:~¢ ..........
local land use and zoning i,..¥0irements, fire zones,
building setback add side and rear yard requirements,
sde development and property line requirements, subdi-
vision control, and onsite installation requirements, as
well as review and regulation of architectural and aes-
thetic requirements, are hereby specifically and entirely
reserved to local jurisdictions. However, any architec-
tural or aesthetic requirement imposed on the mobile
home structure itself may pertain only Io roofing and sid-
ing materials. Such local requirements and regulations
and others must be reasonable, uniformly applied, and '~Note.--Repeaied etfeclive October 1, 1998. by s. 20. ch. 88-147 an0
enforced without distinctions as to whether such hous- ~or review pursuant to s. 11.61.
lng is manufactured, located in a mobile home park or
a mobile home Subdiv s on, or built in a conventional
manner.
(6) Park trailers are subject to inspection in the same
manner as are mobile homes pursuant to this section.
I'listor~.__s 6, ch. 74-169; s. 10, ch, 75-203; s. 1. ch. 77-174; s. 2. ch. 81-318;
s 12, ch. 82-66; s. 4, ch. 84~182; ss. 19. 20. ch 88-147·
"Note.--Repealed eflective October 1, 1998, by s 20, ch. 88-147, and scheduled
for review pursuant to s 11.61.
~320.830 Reciprocity.--If any other state has codes
for mobile homes or recreational vehicles at least equal
to those established by this chapter, the department,
upon determining that such standards are being
enlorced by an independent inspection agency, shall
place the other state on a reciprocity list, which list shall
be available .to any interested person. Any mobile home
or recreational vehicle which bears a seal of any state
Which has been pieced on the reciprocity list may not be
required to bear the seal of this state. A mobile home or
recreational vehicle which does-not bear the seal herein
prOvided shall not be permitted to be manufactured or
Offered for sale by a manufacturer or' dealer anywhere
~320.832 Legislative intent, Nothing herein s.~, ~-"'i';~ b)-. In the ev-
ac~tistm°ry.n.u~lif~ ocrh sdu~persede the provisions of chaPter ~"~ ' ~:..;2.~ ~eotly susta
· -- - . . -3~; s 3, ch. 76-1~; s. 1 ch. 77-457
80-217; ss. 2: 3, ch. 81-318; ss 19. 20, ch, 88-147. ' ..... ~7 ~ ~L" ~ Cea that tk
'Note.--Repea~d eflective Oclober 1, 1998. by s. ~. ch. 88-147. an0 s~ ~;. ~ Ch, the pe
IO .....ew pursuant to s, 11.61. ~;:,; ] ~ed er tiec
'320.8325 MObile homes and park trailers; tie-~
requirements; minimum install~ion standards; inj~ ~'~ ~ce policy
tions; penalty,-- ~ ~ ~at the m~
~. ~;~ i~chored or
(1) The owner of a mobile home or park trailer ~ ~?~ ~.. Wheneve~
secure the mobile home Or park trailer to the 9rour~ ~ ~ ~lling anch,
the use of anchors and tie-downs so as to resist ~ ~'engages in:
overturning and sliding. However, nothing herein
.. ~ ~-::~ or dealing
be construed as requiring that anchors and [,~_~ · ~:,~-~,.
~ ~ ~t~ ~ in a man
be installed to secure mobile homes or par~ tr~. ~¢a~m stander
which are permanently attached to a permanent s~ ~ ~-~2~ ·
ture. A permanent structure shall have a founda~;~_ ~¢~ aggrieved the
such other structural elements as are required
to rules and regulations promulgated by me
which assure the rigidity and stability of the m~;;~.' in f
..... ~"~ 'l~ing of a viol,
home or park trailer.
within the geographical limits of this state unless the
mobile home or recreational vehicle is designated for
delivery into another state which has not adopted a code
entitling such state to be placed on the reciprocity list.
Hi$tor~.--s. 11, ch. 67-350; ss. 24, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 8, ch. 74-169; s 8, ch
75-203: s 2, ch. 81-318: ss. 19, 20, ch. 88-147.
~Nole.--Repealed effective October 1, 1998, by s. 20, ch. 88-147, and scheduled
for rewew pursuant 1o s. 11.61.
:: ,~.....: ,~ engaging
(a) A mobile home or park trailer manufact !~_~:~!]i~ to the satis'
la..^,_ ,u'red ~!~?~l'~s occurred
accordance with the code standards and uu~a'b,-
cane and windstorm resistive" shall be ~u ~o~ ~'~.~ ~
anchor_~. --c-~ to the aggrie
~ar.. . ~~t court cos
anChor point provided on the mobile home or ~e~ '[~' ~'~ ~'~:'~ by the pr~
A mobile home or park trailer which does not t~~~
~ JR edition t
standards must be anchored with anchor points pa~~e depar[m6
as required by the department starting at eadh end
!320.831. Penalties.-- the mobile home or park trailer.
· ': : '' (b). lo'addition, each mobile home 0r park trailer
(!) Whoever violates any prbv s on of the National be tied down by one of the following means:
MObile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1. A mobile home or park trailer having built-
1974, 42 U.S.C. ss. 5401 et seq, or any rules, regula-
tions, or final order issued thereunder shall be liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each such viola-
tion. Each violation of a provision of the act or any rule,
regulation, or order-issued thereunder shall constitute a
separate violation with respect t~ each mobile home or
with respect to each failure or refusal to allow or perform
an act required thereby, except thar'the maximum civil
penalty may not exceed $1 million for any related series
of violations occurring within 1 year from the date of the
first violation.
(2) Any individual, or a director, officer, or agent of
a corporation, who knowingly and willf*31ty violates the
provisions of s. 610 of the National Mobile Home Con-
struction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 in a manner
which threatens the health or safety of any purchaser is
guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
are auth
jurisdic
to grant
over-the-roof ties shall be secured by the tie-, any pe
points, provided such built-in ties and points meet dist
standards promulgated by the department.
2: /* rr~obile home or park trailer not havin,
over-the-roof ties and tie-down points which standarc
department'standards shall be secured in ac( any pe
with standards promulgated by the department, tie-downs
(2) The department shall promulgate rules and n that do n.o~
lations setting forth minimum standards for the man: the departn
ture or installation of anchors, tie-downs, over-th not in
ties, or other reliable methods of securing by th,~
or park trailers wffen over-the-roof ties are not uate
due to factors such as unreasonable cost, design t
mobile home or park trailer, or potential damage to u'~ section
mobile home or park trailer. Such devices requ~r~ that is b
under this section, when properly installed, shall ca,..~ ~located on a p
the mobile home or park trailer to resist wind overturr~ 7 14 days,
and sliding. In promulgating such rules and regulat,ar'~- trailer.
54O
Y GENERAL ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATT( 'EY GENERAL 87-37
~y provisions of law other
:rig authorities. Section
a taxing authority must
resolution or ordinance
dure the provision in s.
s in accordance with
xg budget procedures
edures do not conflict
hearings prescribed in s.
:lng authorities, but any
,scribe budget procedures
such taxing authorities.
and adopt tentative and
rate in accordance with
es established by special
~ municipality is thereby
' to levy ad valorem taxes
icipality and subject to
.'onsistency between Ch.
~f Florida, and pertinent
~6.211(1) operates to limit
-es prescribed therein for
ed governmental units in
racy between Ch. 74-430,
orida, and provisions of
in Ch. 74-430, supra, as
with such provisions of
zles that the act does not
.~ct to advertisements and
;, it is my view that Ch.
utes on the City of Palm
such special act applies
which the amount of ad
ds by ten percent the ad
r exclusive of revenues to
ppearing on the previous
the provisions of Ch..200,
osed budget and holding
Ch. 74-430, as amended,
~m Bay in the absence of
ess and until judicially
your inquiry, I would note
~he taxation article of the
~ns "a statute adopted by
vernor. 22 So.2d 398, 400
~s, Inc., 419 So.2d 1145 (4
_hat phrase "provided by
egislature). A special act,
vfthe Legislature. See. ss.
· 372 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1979),
holding that the phrase "by law" as used in s. 14. Art. III, State Const., included
"special or local laws."
Therefore, unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is
my opinion that the terms of Ch. 74-430, Laws of Florida, as amended by Ch. 85-381,
Laws of Florida, are operative on the City of Palm Bay as an affected governmental
unit in Brevard County in addition to and in the absence of any conflict or
inconsistency with provisions of general law relating to the levy of millage and
advertistments thereof and public hearings thereon. Accordingly, a referendum of
the registered voters of the City of Palm Bay is required by the terms of Ch. 74-430,
supra, as amended, if the amount of ad valorem tax revenues for the city's proposed
budget for operating funds exceeds by ten percent the ad valorem tax revenues for
operating funds of the preceding year exclusive of revenues to be raised from new
construction and improvements not appearing on the previous year's assessment
roll.
AGO 87-37--April 21, 1987
COUNTIES--HOUSING
AUTHORITY TO ZONE TO EXCLUDE FACTORY-BUILT HOUSING,
UNAUTHORIZED; IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES UNIFORMLY APPLIED,
AUTHORIZED.
To: Mr. Warren 0. Tiller, County Attorney, Volusia County
Prepared by: Craig Willis, Assistant Attorney General
QUESTIONS:
1. May a local government exclude factory-built housing which is
constructed to the standards of Part IV of Ch. 553, F.S., from a
zoning classification that permits conventionally constructed
housing?
2. If the answer to question one is in the negative, may a local
government impose additional construction standards for aes-
thetic purposes applicable to both conventional and manufactured
housing?
SUMMARY:
1. Local government cannot exclude manufactured housing con-
structed to the standards required by the Department of Com-
munity Affairs under Part IV of Ch. 553, F.S., from a zoning
classification that permtis conventionally constructed housing.
2. Local aesthetic regulations may be uniformly applied and
enforced without any distinction as to whether a building is
conventionally constructed or manufactured, but such regulations
must be reasonable and bear a relationshlp to aesthetic uniformity
or safety.
AS TO QUESTION ~:
Part IV of Ch. 553, F.S., is known as the "Florida Manufactured Building Act of
1979." Section 553.35, F.S. Subsection (1[) of s. 553.36, F.S., defines a "[m]anu-
factured building" to mean
97
87-37 ANN?~ L REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERA
a closed structure, building assembly, or system of subassemblies, which
may include structural, electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, or other
service systems manufactured in manufacturing facilities for installation
or erection, with or without other specified components, as a finished
building or as part of a finished building, which shall include, but not be
limited to, residential, commercial, institutional, storage, and industrial
structures. This part does not apply to mobile homes. Manufactured
building may also mean, at the option of the manufacturer, any building of
open construction made or assembled in manufacturing facilities away
from the building site for installation, or assembly and installation, on the
building site.
The Department of Community Affairs is vested with the authority and duty and
responsibility to administer the provisions of Part IV of Ch. 553. Section 553.37, F.S.
In carrying out the: administration of the manufactured building act, the depart-
ment is vested with the authority and responsibility to promulgate rules which will
assure "that each manufactured building is structurally sound and properly
installed on site and that plumbing, heating, electrical, and other systems thereof
are reasonably safe ...." Section 553.38(1).
An examination of Part IV of Ch. 553 reveals that the Act constitutes a state
preemption of standards and requirements for manufacture of factory-built housing
in the State of Florida. The Department of Community Affairs is vested with the
authority to promulgate rules, enter into contracts, and do such ~hings as may be
necessary and incidental to the administration of the manufactured building act,
and to issue an insignia of approval for all manufactured building in compliance
~th the department s reqmrements promulgated under Part IV of Ch. 553. Section
553.37(1) and (2), F.S. Subsection (3) of s. 553.37 provides that "[a]ll manufactured
buildings issued and bearing insignia of approval pursuant to subsection (2) shall be
deemed to comply with the requirements of all ordinances or ru~es enacted by any
local government which governs construction." And see, AGO 73-107, in which this
office opined that a local governmental entity which enacts an electrical code which
differs from the electrical code adopted by the Department of Comn~unity Affairs for
factory-built housing pursuant to s. 553.38(1) may not require additional approval of
factory-built housing units bearing the department's insignia of approval which are
subsequently sold or installed within the entity's jurisdiction.
Directly responsive to your inquiry, s. 553.38(2), F.S., in pertinent part, provides:
The department shall enforce every provision of this par~ and the rules
adopted pursuant hereto, except that local land use and zoning require-
ments, fire zones, building setback requirements, side and rear yard
requirements, islte development requirements, property line requirements,
subdivision c0ntrol, and onsite installation requirements, as well as the
review and regulation of architectural and aesthetic requirements, are
specifically arrd entirely reserved to local authorities. Such local require-
ments and r~es which may be enacted by local authorities mu'st be
reasonable and uniformly applied and enforced without any d~stinction as
to whether a 'building is a conventionally constructed or manufactured
building. (e.s.)
This provision e~pressly forbids a zoning ordinance which discriminates against
manufactured bui~di*~-gs. In Campbell v. Monroe County, 426 So.~d 1158 (3 D.C.A.~
Fla., 1983), the dis~ri¢~ ~.ourt of appeal reviewed a county zoning ordinance which
effectively excluded factory-built housing from the particular zoning classification.
The zoned area in question r~quired masonry construction for all new housing
which is not used in the conbtruction of the manufactured houses. The court, while
acknowledging th~ fact that the taw reserves to local governments the authority to
enforce zoning requirements that regulate aesthetic appearances, stated at 1161
th at an ordinance ~nnot conflict with state law, "and if any doubt exists, doubt is to
be resolved against the ordinance in favor of the statute." Citii~g Retail Credit
98
ANl~
Company v. D~
not conflict wit
661 (Fla. 1972);
Fla., 1981), the
products or
requirements
therefore the
built housing
Based upon t
in Campbell v
government m:
by the Depart~
zoning classifl
AS TO QUES~
Section 553.~
and zoning req
aesthetic requi
(e.s.) This pro~
However, the c~
is also applics
required that
new housing
the testimony
only to exctud~
1161 stats&
There is
that brick~
housing,
covered wi
used by ap
The appella'
different const
that the ordin~
void as ap,
RU-1M be
retationsh:
ordinance
of state st~
426 So.2d at
uniformity or
in conflict wil
aesthetic requ
manufactured
In conclusio~
1. Local
the stand~
Part IV c
conventio~
2. Local
without
structed o:
bear arele
ERAL
ablies, which
ting, or other
r installation
~s a finished
· lc, but not be
ad industrial
lanufactured
~y building of
cilities away
lation, on the
city and duty and
~ction 553.37, F.S.
g act, the depart-
e rules which will
nd and properly
r systems thereof
institutes a state
ory-built housing
s vested with the
things as may be
zred building act,
ng in compliance
f Ch. 553. Section
~.]ll manufactured
~ection (2) shall be
~s enacted by any
107, in which this
ztrical code which
-~unity Affairs for
fional approval of
)proval which are
nt part, provides:
and the rules
ning require-
nd rear yard
:equirements,
· s well as the
:irements, are
local require-
ities must be
distinction as
nanufactured
riminates against
.2d 1158'(3 D.C.A.
: ordinance which
~ng classification.
· all new housing
s. The court, while
~s the authority to
· es, stated at 1161
,t exists, doubt is to
:~ng Retail Credit
kNNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY r ~ERAL 87-37
Company v. Dade County, Florida, 393 F.Supp. 577 (S.D. Fla. 1975) (ordinance must
not conflict with controlling provisions of general law); Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d
661 (Fla. 1972); City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corporation, 404 So.2d 1066 (3 D.C.A.
Fla., 1981), the court concluded that the ordinance in question served only to exclude
products or techniques used in factory-built housing with no showing that such
requirements bore a relationship to aesthetic uniformity or safety, and that
therefore the ordinance was void because it in effect discriminated against factory-
built housing in violation of state statutes.
Based upon the statutory language contained in s. 553.38(2), F.S., and the holding
in Campbell v.-Monroe County, supra, I am therefore of the opimon that a local
government may not exclude manufactured housing, built to the standards required
by the Departn~ent of Community Affairs under Part IV of Ch. 553, F.S., from a
zoning classification that permits conventionally constructed housing.
AS TO QUESTION 2:
Section 553.38(2), F.S., as set forth above, expressly provides "that local land use
and zoning requirements, ... as well as the review and regulation of architectural and
aesthetic requirements, are specifically and entirely reserved to local authorities."
(e.s.) Thisprovision clearly permits local governments to regulate aesthetic matters.
However. the case of Campbell v. Monroe County, supra, discussed in Question One,
is also applicable to your second question. The ordinance in the Campbell case
required that in certain residential zones, exterior masonry walls be constructed on
new housing for aesthetic purposes. However, the court found that, based in part on
the testimony of the county's building official, enforcement of the ordinance served
only to exclude products or techniques used in factory-built housing. The court at
1161 stated:
There is no showing of any local condition which justifies a requiremen~
that bricks or stones be used to construct the exterior walls of residential
housing, to the exclusion of walls constructed of steel studs and ribbed lath
covered with three-fourths inch of stucco -- an approved technique which is
used by appellants.
The appellants elicited testimony from the county building official that the
different construction techniques were not visually distinguishable. The court held
that the ordinance was
void as applied herein because by requiring that homes in a district zoned
RU-1M be constructed of masonry to the roof line, with no showing of a
relationship of that requirement to aesthetic uniformity or safety, the
ordinance in effect discriminates against factery-built housing in violation
o£ state statutes. (emphasis in original)
426 So.2d at 1161. Thus, local regulations having no relationship to aesthetic
uniformity or safety which in effect discriminate against factory-built housing are
in conflict with and violate s. 553.38(2), F.S. Regulation of architectural and
aesthetic requirements cannot be used as a subterfuge to effectively zone-out
manufactured buildings.
In concluslom I am of the following opinion:
1. Local gc:?ernment cannot exclude manufactured housing constructed ~o
the standard~, required by the Department of Community Affairs under
Part IV of Ch. 553, F.S., from a zoning classification that permits
conventionally co. nstructed housing.
2, Local aesthetic regulations may be uniformly applied and enforced
~vithout any distinction as to whether a building is conventionally con-
s~ructed or manufactured, but such regulations must be reasonable and
bear a relationship ~o aesthetic uniformity or safety.
99
ii¸
:ason to mainta/n
lave
~alue of the
their
vunting by
image in the
nd therefore
ss to potential
value to those
Winn failed
g these reasons
n~ with
,~al conspiracy
~o'rt an inference'i
atsushita, 475
1357;
m made out a
here the sole
rer's complaints
orce the distributq.ra
;cturer's retail pric-.z,:.
afacturer's
its image and the
5, ,a, nd to keep
ibel s complaints t~
.scounting practice[~:
h discounting did to
n's most persuasive
er from Elegante to
t not discounted and
~at Hibel would pre-
.nting, did not'rebut
:ter was unsolicited
showed Elegant~'s
¥inn's discounting:
'ence in Helicopter
F.2d at 1535~-which
ship agreement ex-
the manufacturer's
ist was binding, cor-
~ the manufacturer
~st the price cutting
~eting dealer's eom-
~turer's request that
~s the district court ob-
cello, New York area
ibel dealers. Given this
rtainly had a right to
SCURLOCK v. CITY OF LYNN HA'WEN, FLA.
Cite az 858 F.2d 1521 (llth Cir. 1988)
future violations be reported--Hibel never
reassured Elegante that it had taken action
on its complaints, nor requested that Ele-
gante report further pricing violations,s
We believe that our disposition of Winn's
antitrust claim is mandated by current case
law. Other circuits dealing with claims of
vertical price fixing since Matsushita and
Monsanto have found evidence of price
fixing comparable 'or greater than that
which Winn presented insufficient to make
out a per se case of price fixing. See
Culberson, Inc. v. Interstate Elec. Co., 821
F.2d 1092 (Sth Cir. 1987) (summary judg-
ment); Garment Dist. Inc. v. Belk Stores
Serv. Inc., 799 F.2d 905 (4th Cir.1986), cert
denied, U.S. --., 108 S.Ct. 1728, 100
L. Ed.2d 193 (1988) (directed verdict);
McCabe's Furniture, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy
Chair Co., 798 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1986), cert
denied, U.S. ,108 S.Ct. 1728, 100
L. Ed.2d 193 (1988) (judgment notwithstand-
ing the verdict).
AFFIRMED.
Henry A. SCURLOCK, Robert S. Scur-
lock Debra L. Scurlock and Statewide
Mobile Homes of Florida, Inc., a Flor-
ida Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
V.
CITY OF LYNN HAVEN, FLORIDA,
Ddfeudant-Appellant.
Nos. 87-3298, 87-3675.
United Staie~ Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 31, 1988.
Owners of mobile home brought action
against city challenging city's zoning ordi-
6. Even if the evidence would have permitted the
jury to find that Hibel and Elegante conspired
to terminate Winn because his conduct harmed
the Hibel image, this would be a non-price re-
1521
nance restricting placement of their mobile
home. The United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida, No.
MCA 84-2129 RV, C. Roger Vinson, J.,
granted judgment for owners and awarded
attorney fees, and appeal was taken. The
Court of Appeals, Clark, Circuit Judge,
held that: (1) city ordinance attempting to
impose greater safety requirements for
mobile home than those imposed under Na-
tional Manufactured Housing and Safety
Standards Act was preempted by Act; (2)
city zoning ordinance conflicted with state
law and thus, was invalid under principal of
preemption; and (3) remand of attorney fee
issue was required.
Affirmed in part, vacated and remand-
ed in part.
1. Health and Environment
States ¢=18.69
National Manufactured Housing and
Safety Standards Act precludes state and
municipalities from imposing construction
and safety standards upon mobile homes-
that differ in any respect from those devel-
oped by Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, § 604(d), 42 U.S.
C.A. § 5403(d).
2. Zoning and Planning
Municipalities may zone land to pursue
any number of legitimate objectives related
to. health, safety, morals, or general wel-
fare of community.
3. Health and Environment ¢~20
Municipal Corporations
Gity ordinance attempting to impose
greater safety requirements for mobile
home than those imposed under National
Manufactured Housing and Safety Stan-
dards Act was preempted by Act. Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974,
§§ 602-627, 42 U.S.G.A. §§ 5401-5426.
straint judged under a rule of reason analysis, a
claim no; raised by Winn. See Business Elec-
tronics, U.S. at. __, 108 S.Ct. at 1521-22.
1522 ~. SSS FEDERAL REPORTER, 2~._~:'RIES
4. Zoning and Planning ~:~i4
City zoning ordinance, which excluded
any mobile home that either did not meet
southern standard building code, national
electrical code, or electrical code of city, or
which did not bear seal of Florida Depart-
ment of Community Affairs, conflicted
with Florida law providing that local re-
quirements and regulations must be rea-
sonable, uniformly applied, and enforced
without distinctions as to whether housing
was manufactured, located at mobile home
park, or built in conventional manner, and
thus, ordinance was invalid under principal
of preemption. West's F.S.A. §~ 320.823,
320.8285(5); Housing and Community De-
velopment Act of 1974, § 604(d), 42 U.S.C.
A. § 5403(d).
5. Federal Courts a=~945
Remand of issue of propriety of attor-
ney fee award was required in § 1983 chal-
lenge to city's zoning ordinance restricting
placement of certain mobile homes in city,
where case involving constitutional chal-
lenge based on virtually identical facts de-
cided prior to district court order but after
trial in district court cast serious doubt on
propriety of award. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983,
1988.
Larry A. Bodiford,;Panama City, Fla., for
defendant-appellant.
Lynn C. Higby, BrYant, Higby &
Williams, Panama City, Fla., Keith C. Tis-
chler, Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark,
& SkeIding, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiffs-
appellees.
Robert Sass??,, Alabama Manufactured
Housing Institute: Webb, Crumpton,
McGregor, Sasseri Davis & Alley, Mont-
gomery, Ala., for amicus curiae.
* Honorable Philip NichoIs.. Jr., Senior U.S. Cir-
cuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by
designation.
1. In this opinion, the term "mobile home" is
equivalent to the terms "manufactured home,"
as appears in the Florida Statutes. and "trailer,"
as appears in the Lynn Haven Municipal Code.
2. Manufactured buildings are factory-built hous-
es and are transported to the site upon which
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before KRAVITCH and CLARK,
Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS *, Senior
Circuit Judge.
CLARK, Circuit Judge:
The City of Lynn Haven ("Lynn Haven"
or "City") appeals from an order holding
that a portion of its municipal code is
preempted by federal and state law (No.
87-3298) and separately from an order
awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiffs
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (No. 87-3675). In
No. 87--3298, we affirm. In No. 87-3675,
we vacate the award of attorney's fees and
remand.
This case involves the regulation and
placement of mobile homes ~ in Lynn Ha-
ven. Robert E. and Debra L. Scurlock
(collectively "the Scurlocks") ow_n a mobile
home and desire to place it on residentially-
zoned property owned by Mr. Scurlock's
father (the "Montana Avenue" property).
The Scurlocks' home meets the require-
ments of the National Manufactured Hous-
ing and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42
U.S.C. §§ 5401-5426 ("the Act"), and the
regulations adopted pursuant thereto, see
24 C.F.R. §§ 3280-3282 ("HUD regula-
tions''). Unlike another type of dwelling
known as a "manufactured building," how-
ever, the Scurlocks' mobile home does not
bear the seal of the Florida Department of
Community Affairs.2
The City's municipal code imposes a zon-
ing regulation on the Montana Avenue
property which excludes any home that ei-
ther"doe~ not meet the Southern Standard
Building Code, the National Electrical
Code, and the Electrical Code of the City of
Lynn Haven (collectively "SSBC"), or does
they are to be located. Unlike mobile homes,
however, manufactured buildings are not con-
structed on a chassis. Manufactured buildings
are inspected at the factory by the Florida De-
partment of Community Affairs and are built to
the Southern Standard Building Code, which
also applies to site-built homes. Grant v. Coun-
ty o[ Seminole, r~Ia., 817 F.2d 731 733 (llth
Cir. 1987). '
District
Florida.
~enior
Haven'
holding
eod~
~w
t orde~
iaintiffS
75). in
~7-367~. ~:
ecs and
on and
nn Ha-
curloek
mobile
ntially-
wloek's
~perty).
'equire~
{ Hous-
e74, 42
nd the
I;0,
cegula-
.veiling
' how-
~es nol;
rant of
a zon-
~venue
:hat ei-
andard
ctrieal
~ity of
r does
homes,
ti corl-
~ildings
:da De.
vuilt to
which
Coun-
(llth
not bear the seal of the Florida Department
of Community Affairs. The Scurlocks' mo-
bile home meets neither prong of this regu-
lation. It does, however, satisfy all other
requirements for siting on the Montana
Avenue lot? The City's inspector acknowl-
edged that if the Scurlocks' mobile home
either had the appropriate seal or met the
SSBC, it would have been allowed on the
zoned property.
Lynn Haven allows mobile homes to-be
placed in unzoned areas of the City ~ and in
licensed public trailer parks in special mo-
bile home districts. Four such trailer
parks are located within the City, collective-
ly containing approximately 90 mobile
homes. Because the Scurlocks "wouldn't
live in any of thegn," they initially attempt-
ed to obtain a variance from the Lynn
Haven City Commission so that they could
place their mobile home on the Montana
Avenue lot. After the Commission rejected
their request the Scurlo5ks brought this
suit in federal court, claiming that portions
of the City's municipal code violated their
rights to substantive due process and equal
protection under the fourteenth amend-
ment and were preempted by the Act, the
HUD regulations, and sections 320.827 and
320.8285 of the Florida Statutes.
Much of the evidence at trial concerned
the differences between the HUD require-
ments and those contained in the SSBC.
Expert testimony indicated that, for the
RLOCK v. CITY OF LYNN HAVEN, FI_ 1523
Clteas858 F.2d 1521 (llthClr. 1988) ~'
that the Act, the HUD regulations, and the
Florida statutes precluded municipalities
from imposing additional construction re-
quirements upon mobile homes built in
compliance with the HUD regulations.
The court therefore enjoined the City from
prohibiting the Scurlocks from placing
their mobile home on the Montana Avenue
lot and granted attorney's fees to the Scur-
locks under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. From these
decisions Lynn Haven appeals.
DISCUSSION
A. Federal Preemption
"As in all matters of statutory construc-
tion, [federal] preemption, which has its
roots in the Supremacy Clause, is a matter
of congressional intent." Gushke v. City
of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th
Cir. 1985). Congress may evidence its in-
tent explicitly by defining the extent to
which state law is to be preempted. Michi-
gan Canners & Freezers Ass'n, Inc. v.
Agricultural Mktg. and Bargaini~zg Bd.,
467 U.S. 461, 469, 104 S.Ct. 2518, 2523, 81
L:Ed.2d 399 (1984). Such express preemp-
tive language may be found on the face of
a statute, in its legislative history, or in
regulations promulgated pursuant to the
law. Howard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 719 F.2d
1552, 1556 (11th Cir. 1983). In addition,
preemptive intent may be inferred when
Congress legislates comprehensively, thus
most part, the standards are equi?alent~~ occupying an entire field of regulation, or
However, there is no dispute that the HUD
regulations and the SSBC are not identical.
For example, under the Southern Standard
Building Code housing must withstand
winds of up to 110 miles, per::hour, while
under the HUD regulations mobile homes
need only withstand winds of up'to 97-99
miles per hour. In addition, electrical wir-
ing deemed adequate hy HUD may be in-
sufficient to meet the City's local electrical
code. Because of these differences, the
district court determined that the City
could not use noncompliance with the S'SBC
to prevent mobile homes from being sited
on residentially-zoned property. It held
3. The lot itself also meets all requirements for
the residential zoning classification.
when state law actually conflicts with fed-
eral law and stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress. Mi-
.._chi~ga_n~ ~anners, 467 u.s. at 469, 104 s.ct.
at 2523. While Congress is free to-~tatut0:
rily overturn a finding of no preemption, a
state has no recourse once its enactment is
held to be preempted by federal law.
Thus, if federal and state statutes overlap,
they should be reconciled if ac all possible.
See Don't Tear it Down, Inc. v. Pennsyl-
vania Ave. Dev. Corp., 642 F.2d 527, 534
(D.C.Cir. 1980) (quoting Merrill, Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ware, 414
4. At the time of trial, six mobile homes were located in unzoned areas.
1524
U.S. :~ 127, 94 S.Ct. 383, 389, 38 L. Ed.2d
348 (1'~c3)); see also Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
v. Hammond, 726 F.2d 483, 488, 496-97
(9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied sub nov~ Chev-
ron U.S.A., Inc. v. Sheffield, 471 U.S. 1140,
105 S.Ct. 2686, 86 L. Ed.2d 703 (1985).
[1] In this case Congress has expressly
defined the preemptive reach of the Act:
Whenever a Federal [mobile] home
construction and safety standard estab-
lished under this chapter is in effect, no
State or political sUbdivision ora State
shall have authority either to establish,
or to continue in effect, with respect to
any [mobile] home covered, any standard
regarding construction or safety applica-
ble to the same aspect of performance of
such [mobile] home which is not identical
to the Federal [mobile] home construc-
tion and safety standard.
858 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2_~d SERIES locate~~
9n a
enacted
the legisli~i
ulations
eruption
e pu~os~~
42 U.S.C. § 5403(d). The language of ~he
statute clearly precludes states and munici-
palities s from imposing construction and
safety standards upon mobile homes that
differ in any respect from those developed
by HUD. Thus, if the Lynn Haven ordi-
nance conditioned mobile home entry into
or sale in the town on compliance with the
SSBC, thereby forcing manufacturers to
meet consaruction and safety requirements
other than HUD standards in order to do
business in the City, the municipal act
would be preempted. Cf. 24 C.F.R.
§ 3282.11(b) (states may not condition mo-
bile home entry or sale on state inspection
if home bears label certifying compliance
with HUD regulations). Although HUD-
approved mobile homes may be sited in
unzoned areas of the City, and licensed
trailer parks, if the mobile home is to be
sited in resi4~ntially_zoned regions, it must
meet requirem'ents other than those speci-
fied by HUD. 'As stated by the district
court:
The City has not attempted to explain
why a mobile home is accepted as safely
constructed when it is located in a desig-
nated mobile home park or an unzoned
area of the City, while maintaining that it
5. Preemption analysis is the same for both state
statutes and local ordinances. City of Burbank
is n¢.j~fely constructed if it is
within a residentially-zoned area.
At 13.
In considering the federal legislation
its impact upon the ordinance
Lynn Haven, we must turn to the le
tire history and the HUD regulations
order to resolve the federal preemption
sue. According to Congress, the
of the Act "are to reduce the number
personal injuries and' deaths
amount of insurance costs and
damage resulting from [mobile] home
dents and to improve the quality
bility of [mobile] homes."
§ 5401. The Act undoubtedly
consumer safety legislation. See 1974
Code Cong. & Admin. News 4279,
Under its provisions, manufacturers of
bile homes must notify purchasers
abou~-
any construction or safety defects and
eor~
rect many at no charge to the consumer~:_~
See id. § 5414(a), (g). If a manufactur~
discovers a defect before the mobile home
is purchased by the consumer, it must "im~
mediately repurchase" the home from ~
dealer or provide for repairs. /ri
§ 5412(a). Moreover, HUD is authorized-to
release to the public information concern-.
ing construction and safety defects present
in particular homes, id. § 5413(c)(5), and
manufacturers must provide purchasers
w/th manuals explaining the operation,
maintenance, and repair requirements of
their mobile homes, id. § 5416. Finally,
the.Act states, that "[ t]he. rights' afforded
[mobile] home purchasers under this chap-
ter may not be waived, and any provision ·
of a contract ... to the contrary shall be
void." -rd. § 5421. However, while con-
sumer protection represents the primary
goal of ~the legislation, complete safety is
not to be obtained at all expense: in pro-
mulgating regulations, HUD must "consid-
er the effect of [the standards] on the cost
of [mobile] home[s] ~o the public." Id.
§ 5403(f)(4). -
Pursuant to this congressional mandate
HUD has developed standards covering
"all equipment and installations in the de-
v. Lockheed Air Terminal, [nc., 411 U.S.
638, 93 S.Ct. t854, 1862, 36 L.Ed.2d 547 (1973).
:t is loca
'~rea.
enacted
the legis]a~;
relations
~emption '~
~e purpose~
number
d prope~
~ and
repreae~
e 1974
re~ of
se~ ab~
~ and~;
:onsume~.
:nufac~e~
obile 'hOme
a from ~e
affs.
· o~d ~
'D COn~-
z~ p~sent
;(c)(5), and
~e~
ope~fion,
emen~ of
~ally,
~ affo~ed
~ cha~
- pro,sion .
~ shall be
w~le con-
-e P~aw
safeW is
e: in pr%
zt "consid-
n %e ~st
~lic."
mandate
covering
in the de-
I U.S. 624,
547 (1973).
'--'SCURLOCK v. CITY
Cite as 858 F.2d
sign, eonstrueti(~nj fire safety, plumbing,
heat-producing and electrical systems of
[mobile] homes." 24 C.F.R. § 3280.1(a).
The HUD regulations seek to establish per-
formanee requirements, see id. § 3280.1(b),
in order to protect the public against any
~tnreasonable risk of death, injury, or the
occurrence of aeeidents due to the design
or eonstruetion of mobile homes, see id.
§ 3280.2(a)(18). Among the regulations is
one guiding our analysis of the federal
preemption issue:
No State or locality may establish or
enforce any rule or regulation or take
any action that stands as an obstacle to
the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives or Congress.
The test of whether a State rule or
action is valid or must give way is
whether the State rule can be enforced
or the action taken without impairing
the Federal superintendence of the [mo-
bileJ home industry a~ established by
the AcL
Id. § 3282.11(e) (emphasis added). Thus,
we must determine whether the Lynn Ha-
ven zoning ordinance impairs the federal
superintendence of the mobile home indus-
try under the Act.
[2] The law is well-settled that govern-
mental bodies like Lynn Haven "have the
right to set minimum standards for hous-
ing in residentially-zoned districts." Grant
v. County of Seminole, Fla., 817 F.2d 731,
736 (11th Cir.1987). Municipalities may
zone land to pursue any number of legit-
imate'objectives related to the health, safe-
ty, morals, or general welfare of the com-
munity. See generally I R. Anderson,
or LYNN HAVEN, ~%A. 1525
1521 (llthClr. 1988)
Monroe County, ~'~6 So.2d 1158, 1161 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App.1983).
[3] Since the City ordinance has greater
safety requirements for a mobile home
than the Federal Act, the ordinance must
give way to the Act. There is no other
impediment to the Scurlock's being granted
a building permit and we affirm the district
court. The City cannot attempt land use
and planning through the guise of a safety
provision in an ordinance when that safety
requirement is preempted by federal law.
See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State
Energy Resources Commission, 461 U.S.
190, 204-16, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 1722-28, 75
L. Ed.2d 752 (1983).
B. State Preemption
[4] Under Florida law, "preemption" Of
local legislation cannot occur absent an ex-
press, specific statement by the state legis-
lature. See, e.g., Tribune Co. v. Cannella,
458 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Fla.1984), appe[~l dis-
missed sub nom. DePerte v. Tribune Co.,
471 U.S. 1096, 105 S.Ct. 2315, 85 L,Ed.2d
835 (1985); Board of Trustees v. Dulje, 453
So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.1984). A
lack of express preemption does not auto-
matically validate a local enactment, how-
ever. Rather, even "[w]here both the state
and a municipality are empowered to legis-
late on a topic, the .municipality [still] may
not enact legislation which directly con-
flicts with the state statute. Jif] a conflict
arises, the state statute must prevail."
Board of 2rustees, 453 So.2d at 178; see
also Edwards v. State, 422 So.2d 84, 85
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) ("A state statute al-
ways prevails over a conflicting municipal
American .~?W_O~_Z_qn'i~g 3d__~_ 7.01~w_7.03 ordinance."). Moreover, any doubts as to
(1986). The City is a[t~mpting to exclude "~ the existence of a conflict are to be re:' ......
the Scurlock's mobile home from its R-AA
section based solely on its safety code.
The City building inspector agreed that if
the home met the Southern Building Code
requirement, a permit would be issued.
Thus the City apparently wishes to apply
its safety code to enforce l~nd use. Un-
doubtedly it could limit Zone R-AA to con-
ventionally-built residences and exclude
mobile homes. See Grant v. Seminole
County, 817 F.2d at 736, and Campbell v.
solved against the-local ordinance and in
favor of the state statute. See Campbell
v. Monroe County, 426 So.2d 1158, 1161
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App.1983). Thus, even though
Florida follows a "restrictive application of
the preemption doctrine," Tribune Co., 458
So.2d at 1077, municipal legislation remains
invalid to the extent it conflicts with state
law.
The Florida legislature, recognizing the
supremacy of the Act with respect to the
1526
construct/¢ ~-~ nd safety of mobile homes,
has adopteh'-~he HUD regulations as its
own. See 42 U.S.C. § 5403(d) (authorizing
states to establish regulations identical to
the federal standards); Fla. Stat.§ 320.823.
Florida also has expressly reserved to mu-
nicipalities the right to enact zoning regula-
tions that affect mobile homes. Section
320.8285(5) of the state's motor vehicle
code provides that "It]he Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall
enforce every prov/sion of this section and
the regulations adopted pursuant hereto,
except that local land use and zoning re-
quirements ... are hereby specifically and
entirely reserved to local jurisdictions."
Although the Florida legislature has re-
served to localities the power to zone, it has
placed significant restrictions on that pow-
er as it may be applied to mobile homes:
"Such local requirements and regulations
and others must be reasonable, uniformly
applied, and enforced without distinctions
as to whether such housing is manufac-
tured, located in a mobile home park or a
mobile home subdivision, or built in a con-
ventional manner." Fla.Stat.
§ 320.8285(5) (emphasis added). According
to the Scurlocks, the Lynn Haven zoning
regulation conflicts with these restrictions.
The question of whether the City's ordi-
nance as applied to the Scurlocks; mobile
home conflicts with section 320.8285(5) is a
difficult one. See Grant, 817 F.2d at 732
("a novel question of state law that [is] by
no means clearcut"). The statute's mean-
~ ing has not been authoritatively interpreted _
by the Florida courts. However, we do
possess several tools that guide our analy-
sis in this area. First, in Campbell, 426
So.2d at 1160, a Florida Court of Appeals
construed a statutor_x- restriction relating to. .....
manufactured buildings that is similar to
the one at issue here. Because we have no
indication that the Florida Supreme Court
would have found the Campbell result to
have been error, we are persuaded by the
decision therein. See Allen v. A.G. Ed-
wards & Sons, Inc., 606 F.2d 84, 87 (5th
Cir. 1979); see also Bradb~try v. Wain-
wright, 718 F. 2d 1538, 1540 (llth Cir. 1983).
Second, we give substantial weight to the
local district court's interpretation of sec-
858 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
tion 320.82[.~.,~//. See Eason v. Weaver?
557 F.2d 1202, 1206 (5th Cir. 1977); see also~
Southern Ry. Co. v. State Farm MuLl
Auto. Ins. Co., 477 F. 2d 49, 52 n. 3
Cir. 1973) ("A districtJ'udge,s
tions on questions involving the law of-.
state are entitied to great weight."). Final:[
ly, we recognize Campbell's admonition-, """
that any doubts must be resolved against-~
the ordinance. Campbell, 426 So.2d a~
1161. With these analytical principles-inj
mind, we return to the question at hand:~
In Campbel~ the Florida court was faced
with a local regulation that for aesthetic
purposes required residences to be coh-
structed of masonry. Id. at 1159 ri2'~l.
Much as is the case here, however, State
law restricted the zoning power of lo~al
authorities regarding manufactured ~uild-
ings by requiring them to "enforce their
regulations 'without any distinction as'-to
whether [a dwelling] is a conventionally
constructed or manufactured building.".',
Id. at 1160. The local ordinance serve6to
preclude the purchaser of a manufactured~
building from locating his dwelling-on :cer-.-
tain residentially-zoned property, for evew
though his dwelling satisfied the bnilding-~
code and looked as though it was made of:
masonry, it actually was constructed, of
steel, wood, and stucco. According to the
court, the local ordinance conflicted ~with.
the state statute:
it is all too clear that enforcement of the
ordinance against [the purchaser] serves
only to exclude products or techniques
used in factory-built housing. There ~is'
no showing of any local condition which
justifies a requirement that bricks o~
stones be used to construct the exterior
walls of residential housing, to the exclu-
sioi{~ of wall~-co~tructed of steel, studs
and ribbed lath covered with three-
fourths inch of stucco--an approved
technique which is used by [the manufac-
turer].
Id. Because of the conflict, application of
the ordinance ~o manufactured buildings
was invalid:
[This section] of the Monroe County
Code is void as applied herein because
by requiring that homes in a [residential-
r
(
(
1
i
(
]
)les
~n .~l'ly
in~'," ·
:turdd!
even'
de of
ed. of
o the
~f the
erves
iques
~'hich
ZS
~rior
hree-
'oved '
ufac-
~n of
tings
unty
ause
~tial-
S~-~RLOCK v. CITY OF LYNN HAVEN, FL~-
Clteas855 Fald 1521 (llthClr. 1988)
ly-zoned district] be constructed of ma-
sonry .... with no showing of a relation-
ship of that requirement to aesthetic uni-
formity or safety, the ordinance in effect
discriminates against factory-built hous-
ing in violation of state statutes.
Id.
In this case we deal not with aesrhetic
regulations but with structural ones. The
Scurlocks' mobile home, although con-
structed using techniques approved by both
the state and federal governments, is pre-
cluded by the Lynn Haven building code
from being sited on the Montana Avenue
lot. As the district court found, because
site-built homes and manufactured build-
ings could be located there, the ordinance
seems to exclude only products or tech-
niques used in constructing mobile homes,
in contradiction of that portion of section
320.8285(5) requiring localities to enforce
regulations "without distinctions as to
whether such housing is manufactured ,..
or built in a conventional manner." More-
over, Lynn Haven made no showing of a
local condition establishing the necessity of
adhering to the SSBC when the evidence
indicates little difference between it and
the HUD regulations as far as the safety
and structural integrity of the homes are
concerned. Nor would such a showing
have mattered here. Assume, for example,
that Lynn Haven established that local
winds reached speeds of more than 97-99
miles per hour, the maximum velocity for
which manufacturers must construct mo-
bile homes under the HUD regulations.
Under the Campbell analysis, the showing
might justify Lynn Haven's decision not to
allow the Scurlocks to site their home on
Montana Avenue Howeve~ section 320.-
1527
struction and safety. Thus, under Florida
law Lynn Haven cannot require mobile
homes to meet other construction and safe-
ty requirements in order to be sited outside
of these parks; to do so would make dis-
tinctions as to whether the homes were or
were not located within mobile home parks.
Because the Lynn Haven zoning ordinance
as applied to the Scurlocks conflicts with
section 320.8285(5), it cannot be used to
proh~it them from locating their mobile
home on the Montana Avenue property.~
We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the
district court in No. 87-3298.
C. Attorney's Fees
[5] Section 1988 of Title 42 provides
that "[i]n any action or proceeding to en-
force a provision of section[ ] ... 1983 ....
the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing par~y ... a reasonable attor-
ney's fee as part of the costs." According
to Congress, section 1988 does not require
that a litigant actually obtain relief under
section 1983, however. Rather, in some
cases the court may award attorney's fees
when a party prevails on other grounds:
"To the extent a plaintiff joins a [section
1983] claim ... with a claim that does
not allow attorney's fees, that plaintiff, if
it prevails on the non-fee claim, is enti-
tled to a determination on the other claim
for the purpose of awarding counsel
fees. In some instances, however, the
claim with fees may involve a constitu-
tional question which the courts are re-
luctant to resolve if the non-constitution-
al claim is dispositive. In such cases, if
the claim meets the 'substantially' test,
attorney's fees may be allowed even
8285(5) goes even further than,;the st~t~ ....... though the court declines to enter judg-
discussed in Campbell. Under section
320.8285(5), localities must also enforce or-
dinances "without distinctions as. to wheth-
er such housing is ... located in a mobile
home park." The City concedes that based
on its code the Scurlocks' home can be sited
in a mobile home park merely by v~eeting
the HUD regulations concerning con-
6. Any doubt as to the language of the statute
and whether it conflicts with the Lynn Haven
zoning regulation has been resolved in favor of
ment for the plaintiff on that claim, so
long as the plaintiff prevails on the non-
fee claim arising out of a 'common nucle-
us of operative fact.'"
Mater v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 132 n. 15,
100 S.Ct. 2570, 2576 n. 15, 65 L.Ed.2d 653
(1980) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, at 4
n. 7 (1976)) (citations omitted). In addition,
the statute and against the ordinance. See
Campbell. 426 So.2d at 1161.
1528
the unadd~r~sed fee claim must be "reason-
ably related to the plaintiff's ultimate suc-
cess.'' Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992,
1007, 104: S.Ct. 3457, 3465, 82 L. Ed.2d 746
(1984). Thus, in order to receive attorney's
fees when only non-fee claims are ad-
dressed, a plaintiff must show that it (1)
has "prevailed" and that the section 1983
claim (2) meets the "substantiality', test, (3)
arises from a "common nucleus of opera-
t/ye fact" with the non-fee claims, and (4) is
"reasonably related to the plaintiff's ulti-
mate .success."
858 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d/-~RiES
Prongs (1), (3), and (4) of this test are not
seriously in dispute here. The Scurlocks
sought in their complaint a declaration in-
validating the Lynn Haven ordinance and
an injunction prohibiting the City from in-
terfering with the placement of their mo-
bile home. The district court granted this
relief and we have affirmed. Thus, be-
muse the Scurlocks "received substantially
the relief requested," Martin v. Heckler,
773 F.2d 1145, 1149 (11th Cir. 1985), they
are "prevailing parties" within the meaning
of section 1988. In addition, the Scurloeks'
fee and non-fee claims both arose out of
the City's refusal to permit them to site
their mobile home on the Montana Avenue
property. This key fact forms the "com-
mon nucleus" from which all the theories
for recovery derived. Finally, fee claims
are "reasonably related" if they are aimed
at achiev/ng the same result based on the
same facts or legal theories. See Smith,
468 U.S. at 10115, 104 S.Ct. at 3470; accord
Seaway Drive-In, Inc. v. Township of
Clay, 791 F.2d 447, 455 (dth Cir.), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 884, 107 S.Ct. 274, 93
L.Ed. 2d 251 (1986). In other words, if the as Permanent as manufactured buildings.
fee and non-fee claims merely present al- The complaint also suggests that thereis
ternate 'theor2~s. of recovery'for the same ....... no rational basis for allowing [mobile]
injury, they are~reasonably related. See homes to be located in a mobiIe home
Seaway, 791 F.2d at 455. In this regard district, but not elsewhere. These alle-
1983 specifically provides for equitable
relief, and declaratory relief is available
on any claim that presents an actual con-
troversy [28 U.S.C. § 2201], [the Scur-
locks'] [s]ection 1983 claim was simply an
alternate basis of obtaining the relief
received on preemption grounds.
The difficult issue in this appeal is
whether the Scurlocks' section 1983 claim
meets the substant~ahty,, element of Mat-
er. A claim is "substantial" if it remains
"open to discussion," is not "obviously friv*
olous," and is not foreclosed by prior court
decisions or not"o~-merw~se' completely de-
void of merit." See Hagans v. Lavine, 415
U.S. 528, 537, 543, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1382, 39
L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). According to the
trict court:
The complaint in this case alleges in
relevant part that Lynn Haven's Munici-
pal Code denies due process and equal
protection of the laws because i~- discrimi-
nates without any rational basis between
forms of manufactured housing. Specifi-
cally, it permits the siting of manufac-
tured buildings in areas zoned [as resi-
dential], but prohibits the siting of [mo-
bile] homes in any ... district except
mobile home d/stricts .... IT]he com-
plaint states that the two forms of manu-
factured housing are governed by compa-
rable construction standards; that the
[mobile] homes in question are as aesth-
etically pleasing as the manufactured
buildings ~ermitted in [residential areas];
and that ~m0bile] homes are attached to
rea] property in a way that makes them
we agree with th'e district court:
The relief [sought and] obtained by the
[Scu~locks] here was a declaration that
certain aspects of the City of Lynn Ha-
ven zoning and building regulations were
unconstitutional and an injunction bar-
ring the City o~. Lynn Haven from en-
forcing the unconstitutional aspects of
those regulations. Because [s]ection
gations, I believe, sufficiently indicate
that Lynn Haven's Municipal Code dis-
criminates against manufactured homes
in a way that bears no substantial rela-
tion to the public health, safety, morals,
or general Welfare. I conclude, there-
fore, that the plaintiffs' equal protection
and due process claims were substantial
under Hagans ....
-~s for equitable
elief is available
ts an actual con-
'201], [the Scur-
m was simply an
ining the relief
grounds.
this appeal is
;tion 1983 claim
element of Mah-
fi" if it remains
"obviously friv-
d by prior court
-~ completely de-
s v. Lavine, 4115
. 1372, 1382, 39
ding to the dis-
case alleges in
Haven's Munici-
~cess and equal
~use it discrimi-
d basis between
ousing. Specffi-
,ag of manufae-
zoned [as resi-
e siting of [mo-
district except
.. iT]he corn-
forms of manu-
erned by compa-
.ards; that the
)n are as aesth-
-~ 'manufactured
sidential areas];
are attached to
~at makes them
~tured buildings.
!owing [mobile]
a mobile home
re. These alle-
eiently indicate
icipa] Code dis-
factured homes
ubstantial rela-
safety, morals,
:onclude, there-
:qual protection
'ere substantial
BRUN
Before the district court entered this or-
der, but after trial, this court decided the
case of Grant v. County of Seminole,
Fla., 817 F.2d 731 (llth Cir.1987).* Grant
inx;olved a constitutional challenge based
on virtually identical facts s: the county
allowed manufactured buildings but not
mobile homes to be sited in a particuIar
residential zone. See Grant, 817 F.2d at
733. The trial court upheld the zoning
regulations, however, holding that they
were rationally related to legitimate gov-
ernmental goals. Specifically, testimony
indicated that debatable issues existed re-
garding wind vulnerability of mobile
homes, among other things, and that the
locality allowed mobile homes to be placed
elsewhere. The Grant plaintiffs also
failed to demonstrate that the county had
no rational basis for distinguishing be-
tween manufactured buildings and mobile
homes. See id. at 836. On appeal, this
court likewise rejected the section 1983 ar-
guments, and affirmed on the basis of the
district court's opinion. Id. at 832.
The Grant decision casts serious doubt
on the "substantiality" of the Scurlocks'
section 1983 claim. If Grant had been
decided by this court (and therefore been
binding on the district court) before the
Scurlocks filed their complaint, we suspect
that the section 1983 claim effectively
would have been foreclosed by the decision.
However, at the time this case was tried
only a non-binding decision of the Middle
District of Florida had been rendered. Be-
cause the district court's opinion in this
case makes no reference to the Grant deci-
sion, we vacate the attx)rney's fee award
and remand for reconsideration in light of
..... Grant2-'~In de~3r.,rnining whether and in
what amount att~,rney's fees should be
awarded, the district court may consider
7. Th~ trial o~ this case occurred on August 25-
26, 1986. On May 27. 1987, the Grant decision
was issued, and on September 4, 1987 the dis-
tric~ court granted the Scurlocks' request for
attorney's fees.
8. In fact, the same lawyer represented the plain-
tiffs in Grant and in this case.
9. The parties agree that an argument based on
[ederal preemption is not cognizable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Pirolo v. City o/Clear'water,
INC. v. UNITED FOOD & COM. WKIk~4NTERN. 1529
Cite as 858 F.2d 1529 (llth Cir. 1988)
the date of the GranF'decision and whether
and how its holding affects the Scurlocks'
section 1983 claim)~ We therefore VA-
CATE the judgment of the district courtin
No. 87-3675 and REMAND for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
BRUNO'S, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 1657, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-7743.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
0ct~ 31, 1988.
Employer brought action to challenge
arbitrator's decision instituting new policy
to discipline cashiers who failed to charge
customers for items placed in lower com-
partments of shopping carts. The United
States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of Alabama, No. CV87-PT-0885-S,
Robert B. Propst, J., entered summary
judgment in'favor of employer. Union ap-
pealed. The Court of Appeals, Johnson,
Circuit Judge, held that collective bargain-
ing agreement barred arbitrator from cre-
ating new rules to replace rule that was
invalidated as unr~a-~onable:
Affirmed.
711 F.2d 1006, 1011 (llth Cir. 1983). Thus, even
if we had affirmed the decision in No. 87-3298
on [ederal preemption grounds we would still
remand on this question.
10. Cl. Hamer v. County o/Lake, 819 F.2d 1362,
1367-68 & nn. 11-12 (7th Cir. 1987) (discussing
intervening legal devel6pments rendering law-
suits frivolous so that defendants may receive
attorney's fees under section 1983).
1158 Fla.
SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
[4-6] Next, appellants contend that we
must reverse because the trial court permit-
ted defense counsel to inform the jury dur-
ing voit dire that Kearse was uninsured.
We agree that it is generally inadvisable to
present evidence of non-insurance to the
jury. Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So.2d 391 (Fla.
1954); see Steeher v. Pomeroy, 253 So.2d
421 (Fla. 1971) (to reveal amount of defend-
ants' insurance coverage would allow de-
fendants to disclose minimal limits when
advantageous); Beta Eta House Corp. v.
Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) (existence
or amount of insurance coverage has no
bearing on issues of liability and damages,
and such evidence should not be considered
by the jury). However, we find an excep-
tion here. Defense counsel was merely
clarifying a statement by a venireman who
had expressed a belief, based on his own
experience, that Kearse's personal assets
would not be placed in jeopardy by the
litigation. Kearse's counsel questioned the
prospective juror to determine whether he
undersrx~l that. Kearse's position differed
from that of the Prospective juror. Fur-
thermore, although appellan~ objected to
the inquiry, he failed to obtain a ruling
from the court~ Thus, if error existed, it
was not preserved. We note that appel-
lants did not avail themselves of the oppor-
tunity to request that questioning with re-
.
gard to insurance be conducted outside the
presence of other potential jurors. We hold
that under these circumstances, the expla-
-nation given to correct, the juror's misun-
derstanding did not constitute error.
Finding no r~versible error presented in
the points discussed or in the remaining
contention, we affirm.
DANIEL S. PEARSOI~, Judge, concur-
ring.
I write separately only to' r~cord my view,
as I have before, see Tacorobte v. Sta~e, 419
So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Pearson, J.,
dissenting), that simply because counseI for
a party has some basis to ask one prospec-
tive juror about matters which would other-
wise be improper, that does not justify the
inquiry being made before the remaining
prospective jurors. Thus, in the present
case, had the appellant requested that .the
individual juror be separated from the.~
mainder of the prospective jurorS for
ther interrogation, and had that req'ue~'
been denied, I would veto to reverse. ';'
Ruth CAMPBELL and Structural .Hom'~e
Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant/~q
V.
MONROE COUNTY, a political subdivi.-.
sion of Florida, and Howard t[. John-:i
son, Building Official, Appellees.
No. 82-724. ..
District Court of g~ppeal of Florida,
Third District.
Feb. 8, 1983.
Manufacturer of factory-built housing
and purchaser of one of its factory-built
single-family homes appealed from the Cir-
cuit Court, Monroe County, M. Ignatius
/,ester, J., which entered order denying in-
junctive relief. The District Court of Ap-
peaI, Ferguson, J., held that section Of coun-
ty code was void as applied to plaintiffs
because-by requiring the homes 'in district
zoned RU-1M to be constructed of masonry
to roof line, no showing of a reIationship of
requirement to aethestic uniformity or s~fe-
ty, ordinance in effect discriminated against
factory-built housing in violation of state
statutes.
Reversed and remanded.
1. Zoning and Planning
County may enforce zoning require-
ments which primarily regulate aesthetic
appearances.
2. Mur
Ar.
any cm
and if
resolve
the sta
3. Zen-
plied
ing an(
single-:
the ho:
constrt
showin
ment
nance
ry buil
UteS.
~n(
Luci,
Nelson
for apt
I. The
nent [
ident~
(a)
ed i
str~
den.
and
stru
hoe
cla~
for
resi
~)
gra
(~
pen
den
and
ly s
pro:
o~
sire
thei
bee
nt
CAMPBELL v. MONROE COUNTY
Cite as, 426 So.2d 1158 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1983)
2. Municipal Corporations ~=*111(2)
An ordinance must not conflict with
any controlling provisions of a state statute
and if any doubt exists, doubt is to be
resolved against the ordinance in favor of
the statute.
3. Zoning and Planning ~=~14
Section of county code was void as ap-
plied to manufacturer of factory-built hous-
ing and purchaser of one of its factory-built
single-family homes because by requiring
the homes in. district zoned RU-1M to be
constructed of masonry to roof line, no
showing of a relationship of that require-
ment to aesthetic uniformity or safety, ordi-
nance in effect discriminated against facto-
ry built housing in violation of state stat-
utes. West's F.S.A. § 553.73(3)(a, b).
Randy Ludacer, Key West, for appellants.
Lucien C. Proby, Jr., County Atty. and E.
Nelson Read, Asst. County Atty., Key West,
for appellees.
I. The challenged ordinance provides in perti-
nent part: § 19-195, RU-1M~ single-family res-
idential district (masonry construction)
(a) . .. Ail Single-family dwellings construct-
ed in this district shall be of masonry con-
struction to the roof line where such resi-
dences are likely to preserve the character
and appearance of the existing buildings or
structures already present in the neighbor-
hood and to provide a residential district
classification of masonry construction only
for those .owners of presently undeveloped
areas which wish to limit residential develop-
ment on their land to masonry constructed
residences for aesthetic or architectural rea-
son...
(b) RU-IM zoning classification shall not be
granted unle. ss (I) or more of the following
.... criteria is ap~Aicable: - -
(a) The prolS~rty in question has a high
percentage of masonry constructed resi-
dences so that the.RU-1M classification will
serve to preserv~ and enhance the character
and appearance df the area.
(b) The property in question has a relative-
ly small percentage of wood frame houses in
proportion to the total residences existing.
(c) The property in-question is not devel-
oped and the property owner or owners de-
sire to restrict construction or residences on
their land to masonry residences only.
(d) The subdivision or area in question has
been only partially developed so that the RU-
r'la. 1159
Before BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEAR-
SON, and FERGUSON, JJ.
FERGUSON, Judge.
This appeal is taken from an order deny-
ing injunctive relief. Appellants are a
manufacturer of factory-built (modular)
housing and a purchaser of one of its facto-
ry-built single-family homes.
On December 15, 1980, the Building De-
partment of Monroe County, relying on Sec-
tion 19-195 of the County Code,1 issued a
letter rejecting CAMPBELL's application
to construct a modular home on property
zoned RU-1M.2 By an amended complaint
appellants sought a judgment to declare
that the ordinance establishing a special
zoning district had been enacted solely to
insure aesthetic uniformity in the district
and was not intended to restrict particular
building materials or construction tech-
niques.
The county contends that under Section
553.38(2), Florida Statutes (1979)? it has
.1M classification~ if established thereon
would establish the area as predominantly
masonry construction. In all occasions un-
der criteria (d), 50% of the proper~y owners
must consent or voice no objection to the
RU-1M classification.
(e) The subdivision with single family resi-
dences of masonry construction where the
RU-1M will prevent substantial depreciation
in the property values in the neighborhood by
preventing new structures that would be so
at variance with either the exterior architec-
tural appeal and functional plan of existing
buildings so as to cause a substantial depreci-
ation in the property values.
2. RU-I is the county's general zoning category
for single-family residential housing. RU-IM
is essentially identical except that it requires
that all' houses be constructed of masonry to
the roof line.
3. § 553.38(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (1979) provides:
(I) The [State] [D]epartment [of Commu-
nity Affairs] shall promulgate rules which
protect the health, safety, and property of the
people of this state by assuring that each
manufactured building is structurally sound
and properly installed on site and that plumb-
ing, heating, electrical, and other systems
thereof are reasonably safe, and which inter-
pret and make specific the provisions of this
part.
1160
Fla. ; ,.426 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIE/ ·
authority, within i~s~police powers and by
statute, to enforce local Iand use and zoning
requirements including the establishment of
architectural and aesthetic standards within
certain residential areas; that the enact-
ment and enforcement of section 19-t95 of
the Monroe County Code which precludes,
in an area zoned RU-1M, residences con-
structed of materials other than masonry, is
a proper exercise of that zoning authority.
[1] We agree that a Florida county may
enforce zoning requirements which primari-
ly regulate aesthetic appearances. City o£
· Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1974) citing to Sunad, Inc. v. City o£
Sarasota, 122 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1960); Roton-
berg v. City o£ Fort Pierce, 202 So.2d 782
(Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Cf. International
Company, Inc. v. City o£ Miami Beach, 90
So.2d 906 (Fla.1956) (zoning based only on
aesthetics valid if general welfare of the
community depended upon preserving its
beauty). Contra Womeh's Kansas City St.
Andrew Sooiety v. Kansas City, Mo., 58
F.2d 593 (Sth Cir. 1932) (zoning ordinance
enacted merely to satisfy purely aesthetic
desires is unconstitutional and violative of
due process); State v. Woodworth, 33 Ohio
App. 406, 169 N.E. 713 (Ct. App.1929).
However, we focus on that portion of Sec-
tion 553.38(2)~ Florida Statutes (1979) which
requires that local autho~ties enforce their
regulations "without any distinction as to
whether such building is a conventionally
constructed or manufactured building", and
with which the county's actions appear to
conflict.
(2) The department shall enforce every
provision o_f this part and the rules ado ted
pursumlt hereto except th ...... P
, }, ~aL lOCal lano use
and zoning requirements, fire zones, building
setback requirements, side and rear yard re-
.... quirements, site development~ requirements
.............. prdperty:- line~ r~uirem~,*- - ~ -. '
~,~num, as Well as the review and regulation
o1' archRectaral and aesth, etic requirements,
are spedffically'and entirely reserved to local
authorities. Such local authorities must be
reasonable and uniformly applied and en-
forced withottt any distinction as to whether
such building is a
~-;,u.m~y constructed
or manufactured b~ilding .... [e.s.]
4. § 553.73(3)(a) and (b), Fin. Stat. (1979) pro-
rides:
The State Department of Community Af-
fairs is exclusively authorized, by Section
553.38, Florida Statutes (1979), to promul-
gate and enforce rules assuring that facto-
ny-built housing is structurally sound and
properly installed on site. Part VI of the
Building Construction Standards, Chapter
553, Florida Statutes (1979) is entitled:
State Minimum Building Codes. Local
governments 'with building construction
regulation responsibilities are, by its pro~.
sion, permitted to impose-more stringent
requirements than those established by the
State Minimum Building Codes only where
(1) there is'a determination that because.0~
local conditions, more stringent require~
ments are needed in order, to protect.li~e
and property and, (2) the added require~
ments do not discriminate against mate~-
als, products or construction techniques of
demonstrated capabilities. § 553.73(3Xa)
and (b), Fla. Stat. 0979)J
The undisputed testimony of the ~ountfs
Building Official at trial, in part, Was as
follows:
Q. [counsel] Are you familiar with the
kind of construction that Mr. Inman does
with structural homes?
A. [Mr. Johnson] Yes. Like I said a
while ago I have inspected these houses
in the field. The house is s~ructurally
sound. It meets all the requirements of
the building codes of Monroe Coun{y.
There's no problem with the actual con-
struction of the building.
(3) After January 1, 1978, local governments
and state agencies with building construction
regulation responsibilities may provide for
more stringent requirements than those spec-
ified in the State Minimum Building Codes
provides: .....
(a) There is a determination by the local
governing body of a need to strengthen the
requirements of the State Minimum Building
Codes adopted by such governing body,
based upon demonstrations by the local gov-
erning body that local conditions justify more
stringent requirements than those specified
therein, for the protection of life and proper-
ty; and
(b) Such additional requirements are not
discriminatory against materials, products, or
construction techniques of demonstrated ca-
pabilities.
q. A:
you cs
tell th
struct,
A. T'
it doe
they
A.
sonry
Q.
struct
once
A. E
q.
ordim
ics.
put tx
A.
q.
of ho
buildi
A.
the ~
A.
The '
cons~ru
not ma
and he]
struc~ic
which i
and in
suggesi
[2]
any col
and if
resolve
the s5
Dade (
Fla. I9~
control
RinzIe~
City o
So.~ '
~O[, h~
the o~
of Sec
le~tin
Af-
:tion
raul-
and
the
pter
.led:
oeal
tion
;ent
the
lere
~of
life
~of
the
t a
~lly
of
~ty.
-on-
~.nts
for
Jes,
the
dy,
ov-
ore
~ed
not
or
BENASIL COIt.~. v. AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES
Cite as, 426 So.2d 1161 (Fia. App. 3 Dist. 1983)
Q. And in fact if th~6'work is well done,
you can stand twenty feet away and not
tell the difference (between masonry and
structural construction)?
A. That's right.
Q. Then from an aesthetic.point of view
it doesn't make any difference because
they both look the same?
A. Yes, they will both appear as a ma-
sonry constructed house, that is correct.
Q. So, the requirement of masonry con-
struction as opposed to a masonry appear-
ance is not for aesthetic purposes, is it?
A. Right.
Q. Their interpretation of this particular
ordinance has nothing to do with aesthet-
ics. They are concerned about how it is
put together?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ordinarily you find the requirement
of how you put things together in the
building code, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. But in this one particular case it's in
the zoning ordinance.
A. That is correct.
The trial court found that the housing
constructed by appellants was "strong" but
not masonry as required by the ordinance
and held the requirement for masonry con-
struction is a proper zoning requirement
which is not "arbitrary and discriminatory
and in no way violates the Florida Statute
suggested by the plaintiffs". We disagree.
[2] An ordinance must not conflict with
any controlling provisions of a state statute
and if any doubt exists, doubt is to be
resolved against the ordinance in favor of
the statute. :-Retail Credit Compa~L v.
Dado County, Fivrida, 393 F.Supp. 577 (S.D.
Fla.1975) (ordinance must not conflict with
controlling provisions of general law);
Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972);
City o£ Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp., 404
So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We need
not, however, reach ,the question whether
the ordinance is facially void. Enforcement
of Section 19-195 may in some instances
legitimately serve to preserve thc architec-
Fla. 1161
tural and aesthetic chara~__~r of a neighbor-
hood. But in this case, based in part on the
candid testimony of the county's official, it
is all too clear that enforcement of the
ordinance against appellants serves only to
exclude products or techniques used in fac-
tory-built housing. There is no showing of
any local condition which justifies a re-
quirement that bricks or stones be used to
construct the exterior walls of residential
housing, to the exclusion of walls construct-
ed of steel studs and ribbed lath covered
with three-fourths inch of stucco--an ap-
proved technique which is used by appel-
lants.
' [3] Section 19-195 of the Monroe Coun-
ty Code is void as applied herein because by
requiring that homes in a district zoned
RU-1M be constructed of masonry to the
roof line, with no showing of a relationship
of that requirement to aesthetic uniformity
or safety, the ordinance in effect discrimi-
nates against factory-built housing-in viola-
tion of state statutes.
Reversed and remanded.
~KEYNUMBERSYSTEM~
BENASIL CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation,. Appellant,
¥.
AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATO-
RIES, INC., a Florida corporation,
Appellee.
...................... =No:q32-7M. -
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Feb. 8, 1983.
Rehearing Denied March 16, 1983.
Appeal was taken from a judgment of
thc Circuit Court, Dado County, Mole J.L.
A G E N ~ ~ ~ E 0 U ~. $ ~
DATE
April 22. 1992
REGULAR APRIL 28, 199.2 SPECIAL
CONSENT
REQUEST PUBLIC WORK
PRE SENTATI ON HEARING XXX SESSI ON
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: PLANNING
Consider approval of Draft Resolution 992-051, granting the
petition of Andrew E. Trautner to Define a Class A Mobile Home as
a Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit in RS-4 (Residential, Single
Family 4du/ac) zoning.
Location: Old Dixie Highway, Approximately one-quarter mile south
of Chamberlin Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATI ON'.
Staff recommends Approval of Resolution 992-051.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER
( SPECI FY I F BUDGE T A~ENDMENT 1~S ~EQUI RED )
T~r-r~ -L./Vfrta - ~
Devel op~ent Admi his trator
? _Jame) V. Chisholm
co ty Administrator
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE: 4/28/92
Continued for one week.
TO:
jam~~s ~v. Chisholm
~nty Administrator
Please re-agenda this item for 5/5/92. If the County requires
the petitioner to modify the house plans (i.e. roof) will they
lose their H.U;D. Certification? cc: County Attorney
A G E N D A
R E O U E S T
DATE April 22. 1992
REGULAR APRIL 28, 1992 SPECIAL
CONSENT
REQUEST PUBLIC WORK
PRESENTATI ON HEARING .XXX S ES SI ON
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: PLANNING
Consider approval of Draft Resolution %92-051, granting the
petition of Andrew E. Trautner to Define a Class A Mobile Home as
a Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit in RS-4 (Residential, Single
Family 4du/ac) zoning.
Location: Old Dixie Highway, Approximately one-quarter mile south
of Chamberlin Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATIO~
Staff recommends Approval of Resolution %92-051.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER
(SPECIFY IF BUDGET A~ENDMENTr~EQUIRED)
BY fL
Te Fr~ -L.//Vfrt a - ~
Development Administrator
CONCURRENCE:
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE:
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
COMMISSION REVIEW: April 28, 1992
File * Number: MH-92-001
ME MO RAND
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
County Commission
Development Administrator
April 15, 1992
Petition of Andrew. E.._ Trautner to define a Class A Mobile
Home as a Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit in a RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) Zoning District.
LOCATI ON:
EXI STING ZONING:
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
PARCEL SI ZE:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
FI RE/EMS PROTECTION:
UTI LI TY SERVI CE:
TRANSPORTATI ON IMPACTS:
RI GHT-OF -WAY
ADEQUACY:
Old Dixie Highway, approximately one-
quarter mile south of Chamberlin Blvd.
RS - 4 (Residential, Single Family,
du/ac ).
RU (Residential Urban, 5 du/ac).
.32 acres.
RS - 4 (Residential, Single Family, 4
du/ac)..
The surrounding Land Use Designation is
RU (Residential Urban, 5 du/ac max.), the
existing uses are residential and
undeveloped.
Station %4 (St. Lucie
approximately 1 mile west.
Blvd. ) is
The subject property would be served by
a well and septic system.
Old Dixie Highway currently has
a right-of-way of thirty (30') feet.
The Ultimate right-of-way is sixty (60')
feet, therefore, an additional right-of-
way reservation may be required.
April 15,
Page 2
1992
Petition: Andrew E.
File No.: MH-92-001
Trautner
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT
REQUIRED:
None.
A Certificate of Capacity.
COMMENTS:
The applicant is requesting authorization to install a mobile
home meeting the definition of a Class A Mobile Home as set forth
in Section 2.00.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development .Code.
If approved, the.petitioners mobile home would be modified to meet
the specifications as described within this petition. The dwelling
unit would be located on .32 acres with a setback of approximately
65 feet from Old Dixie Hwy.
County staff has reviewed the application and determined the
proposed unit to comply with the Standards For Review of a Class A
Mobile Home as set forth in Section 11.05.02(D) of the St. Lucie
County Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval of this
petition subject to the condition that the roof be altered to
provide a roof slope of 4: 12, as stated in the petitioners
application.
If you have any question on this matter, please let us know.
SUBMITTED:
~erlYo~n~ Administrator
CONCURRENCE:
Daniel S. McIntyre
County Attorney
At t achment
TLV/DDW/ctm
MH92001(DDW-BBC)
cc.*
County Administrator
County Attorney
Press/Public
Andrew [rautner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41~
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
RESOLUTION NO. 92-087
FILE NO.: MH-92-001
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING A CLASS A MOBILE HOME AS
A DETACHED SI NGLE FAMIL¥ DWELLING UNIT
IN RS-4 ZONING DISTRICT
IN ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St.
County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
Lucie
1. Andrew E. Trautner presented a petition for a Class A
Mobile Home Permit in RS-4 (Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac)
Zoning District for the property described below.
2. On April 28, 1992, this Board held a public hearing on the
petition, after publishing a notice of such hearing in the Port St.
Lucie News and notifying by mail all owners of property within 500
feet of the subject property.
3. The Class A Mobile Home determination is consistent with
all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and has
satisfied the standards of review set forth in Section 11.05.02(D)
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County , Florida:
Pursuant to Section 11.05.02 of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code, a Class A Mobile Determination for
Andrew El Trautner is hereby approved subject to the
following condition:
The Mobile Home approved herein shall meet the
design specifications as described within the
petitioners application dated March 24, 1992. The
pitch of the roof shall be altered to provide a
roof slope of 4: 12, ~as stated in said application.
The Class A Mobile Home is to be located on the following
described property:
The North 77.27 Feet of the East 179.0
feet of Tract "A" of Taylor S/D, P.B. 9 PG
12, Official Records St. Lucie County
Florida.
(Location: Old Dixie Highway., Fort Pierce, FL. )
C. A copy of this resolution shall be placed on file with the
St. Lucie County Community Development Administrator.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
After motion and second,
follows:
Chairman Havert L. Fenn
Vice-Chairman Jim Minix
Commissioner Judy Culpepper
Commissioner Jack Krieger
Commissioner R. Dale Trefelner
the vote on this resolution was as
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS
ATTEST:
day of , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SSI ONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CLERK
BY
CHAIRMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
BY
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MH92001.
TLV/djm/ddw
LUO~E
BLV l
ROH~
CRA~ER EBERT
CG
;10VANIS
R[~ INKLEY
?ROCINO
CRESSEY
CALHOUN
A
IMES
TERRY
qNDI W
FREDER
LOU]]SF'
ROHk~
I,]-J-NI~R
AGENDA - BOARD OF C0bNTY COMMISSIONERS
TUESU~%, APRIL 28, 1992
9:00 A.M.
Petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class-A mobile home
as a single-family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential,
Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following described
property: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL )
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from time to time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose,
he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn
in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to
cr~ss-examine any individual testifying
request. Written comments received in
hearing will also be considered.
during a hearing upon
advance of the public
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners on April 13, 1992. Legal. notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie county, on April 7, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN
FILE NO. MH-92-001
The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of Tract A of
Taylqr S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the public
records of S%. Lucie County, Florida.
The 5tuai t News and
The Port St. Lucie News
(an editio,1 of The Stuart News)
STATE OF FLOI~II)A
COUNTY OF MARTIN: COUNTY OF 81'. LUCIE:
Before tile ulldersigiled authority appeared KATHY H.
~~xvIIOMANA~ER ()~! oath S~ll~q. that he/she ACCTS REC
" of The Stuart News, and The Port St. l,ucie News,
a daily Hewspaper l'td~lished at Stuart i. Marti~ (.](~u~ly, Florida,
that the attached copy of advertiseme~t, bei.g a
~lic ~ti~
St. Lucie Land ~e
in the
Stuart News a~d The Port St. Lucie News in the issues of
~ 1992
Affia.t further says that the said 'l'lle Stuart Neu~s and The
Port St. 14~eie News is j~ ~,¢avspal)er
Martin ' - pul)lished at Stuart, i. said
Country, l'lorida witl~ offices a~d paid eireulati(n~ i.
Martit~ Country, Florida, m~d St. Lueie Cou.ty, Fhwida a~Ki that
the said ~eukspapers have heretofore i)ee~ co~ti~uously ptd)lished_
i. said Marti~ Country, Fi(3rida a~d distributed i~ hl:~rti~ (Jou~ty,
Florida a~ct St. Lueie County, Florida. for a period of o~e year
uext preceding the first publioati(m of the attached copy of
a(lvertise.~e~t; and affiant further says that he/she Ires ~either
i>aicl Hot prou~ised a~D, person1, firn~ or eorporatio~ a~D. disot)u~t,
rebate, eom~dssio~ or refund for the purpose of seeuri~g this
advertise.~ei~t for lmblieatim~ i. the said ~eukspaper. Ti~e Stuart
News has l)ee~ e~terecl as seeo~d class nmtter at tl~e l~OSt office
precedin~ t[~e first Imblieatio~ of the attacl~ed copy (~f
8worll to alld subscribed before hie ~
SL tuoe SOAao
OF COUNIy COM,~LR$IONE~$
~BLIC H~RING AGENDA
TO WHOM n ~Y COMca~-
-uu. u3
The no~ ~.27 f~'~f 7the east
i 79.0 f~t ~TcaO A of Taylor S/D
r<orded in pl~ book 9. ~e 12 of
the pubticlr~ds al St. [ucie Cou.-
~. Florida.
(Location:' Approximately ~ mile
sash of CMm~li,' 8~vard on
~e west side of Old Dixi~ High-
3]. ~lliq~_ & Carol Do/an for a
variance .}o ~it the cons~odion
tached ~l d<k' en~chbg 25
Sh~eline ~t~io. Qdinance
RS-3 (Resi&~ial. Sbgte Faulty'- 3
du/a~ zo,i,g ~r ~e [ollo~i,g de
scrim l~O~ .
Lot ] t. BI~ t. Rain~ Forest
(L<~o,; Wildern~e Soufh.
Ft. P~erce. Jq
cie Cou,~ Commis~on Cham~rs.
third fl~r ~ Cou,~ Administratio.
Buildi.g An~2300 ~rgi.ia Ave-
~ue; 'Fo~ Piede;'lFtori~a ow April
as s~n ther~ff~ as ~ssible_
to op~l any d~ision mode by c
b~rd. 6gen~. 'or co~is~ion with
res~ to any m~ coaside~ ct
a m~iag or h~ring, he will n~d ~
r~d of the ~<~iags. and thaL
for such put,se, he may ne~ to
ensure that a v~batim r~ord of ~he
proceedings is made. which r~d
inclu~ the teaimony and ~idence
u~n which the ap~l is to ~
ba~d.
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUN,~'. FLORIDA
/S/JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN
Pub]: A~pr_ 7. 1992
ANDREW E & LOUISE TRAUTNER
2929 N OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE F5 34946-8720
#3
ROBERT& FLORA CRAMER
167 CHAMBERLINBV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-0000
#1
CHRISTOGIOVANIS
C/O AP~RODITEMOULI$
3301 BROAD~AY (SOUTH COURT)
RIVIERA BCH FL 33404-0000
#4
MADELINEC EBERT
171 CHAMBERLIN BV
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#2
JOHN R & MILDRE-~'B RO~I~
163 CHAMBERLIN BY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8757
#5
ROBERT TERRY
2825 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950-0000
#6
SANDRA S KAPTIS
3350 S U S 1
FT PIERCE FL 34982-0000
#7
GEORGE p & ELAINE H PEED
2805 N INDIAN RIVERDR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#8
CLAUDIA SUMMERLtN
2801 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-0000
#9
ETHEL R ROGERS
2713 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
#10
C HAYNESWORTH
JACQUELINE H HAYNESWORTH
O BX 3572
PIERCE FL 34948-3572
GELA~NE A HUTCHINSON
SANDRA L HUTCHIN~N
2705 N INDLAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34950
DIANE ROBERTSON
2701 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946
#13
RONALD E & CATHERINE ROHM
2627 N INDIAN RIVER DR
FT PIERCE FL 34946-1808
#14
MARTHA ALLEN
2867 N OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946--~7-19
#15
DOROTHY E BRUBACH
2879 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8719
~16
JEFFREY FREDERICKS
6705 OC3kIAAV
FT PIERCE FL 34951-0000
#17
JOHN & CATHERINE CALHOUN
2895 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8719
JOHN H CALHOUN
3117 SENECA AV
~ PIERCE FL 34946-6651
~t9
DOMINIC PROCINO
JOHN S EVANS
31SOVEREIGNWAY
· ~T PIERCE FL 34949-0000
#20
JAMES & NELLIE BRINKLEY
ll30BCARLTONCT
FT PIERCE FL 34949-3030
BET/5~ & ALLEN CRESSEY
2117 TURNER RD
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8769
.... #22
LEO & W~Y IMES
2917 OLD DIXIE HWY
FT PIERCE FL 34946-8720
PROPERTY ACQUISITION DIV
2300 VIRGINIA AY
FT PIERCE FL 34982
JOHN ANDERSON, FDOT
3111 S DIXIE HWY STE 112
MAILBOX 122
W PALM BCH FL 33405
FLOR~A~T COAST RAILROAD
1FIALA~ST
ST AUGUSTINE FL 32084
ST LUCIEVILLAGE
P O BX 3878
FT PIERCE FL 34948
AGENDA - BOARD OF ~UNTY COMMISSIONERS
Tug'bAY, aPRIL 28, 1992
9:00 A.M.
Petition of Andrew E. Trautner to define a Class-A mobile home
as a single-family detached dwelling unit in RS-4 (Residential,
Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following described
property: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL )
If it becomes necessary, these public hearings may be
continued from time to time.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with
respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he
will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose,
he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the
proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn
in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to
cr~ss-examin~ any individual testifying
request. Written comments received in
hearing will also be considered.
during a hearing upon
advance of the public
Prior to this public hearing, notice of the same was sent to
all adjacent property owners on April 13, 1992. Legal notice was
published in the News Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation
in St. Lucie county, on April 7, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/s/ HAVERT L. FENN, CHAIRMAN
FILE NO. MH-92-001
The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of Tract A of
Taylqr S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the public
records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
RICHARD V NEILL
CHESTER B. GRIFFIN
MICHAEL J EFFRIES
ROBERT M. LLOYD
J- STEPHEN TIERNEY, Tit
BRUCE R. ABERNETHY, JR.
RICHARD V NEILL, JR.
RICHARD m. CARNEI_. JR.
LAW OFFICES
NE~L~I~RIFFIN UIEFFRIES ~ LLOYD
CHARTERED
3Ii SOUTH SECOND STREET
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
April 24, 1992
MAI LING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE BOX 1270
FORT PIERCE. FL 3~954
TELEPHONE {407} 464-8200
FAX {~07) 464-:~566
HAND DELIVERY
Jim Minix, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
RE: File #M~-92-001
Dear Commissioner Minix:
As you may recall, I am the city attorney for the Town of
St. Lucie Village, Florida.
The Board of Aldermen has received yours of April 13, 1992
in relation to the petition of Mr. Trautner to have a mobile home
defined as a single family dwelling.
The subject property, while not within the Town of St. Lucie
Village, is, on its east side, adjacent to Village property.
Permitting such a use would not be consistent with the Village
Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. The Village does not
allow such use within its residential zoning.
Accordingly, the Town of St. Lucie Village requests that the
petition be denied.
RVNjr/mkl
CC'
Thank you for your conside
ichard V. Ne1
Ms. Jan Mallory, Deputy Clerk
tip ,_ L,L 16, I ??2
7o commL~Lo~er ~L~
aoaile ~omea are //ne in ~Ae propea p/ac%aucA aa a acre o/ /and ou~
wea~ of ~own.or Ln a mo6i~e ~ome par~w~ere ~Aere La aupervLaLon o/
ma Ln~ennance.
~de /eeZ l~alL~ wouZd decrea~.e ~e va~ue of our ~omea and proper~
~Lnce aone of ua are a~e ~o a~en~ ~e ~orL~, 2~ meeting, a~ ~.a.m.
~e are ~ubm/~Lng L~La ie~er aa a group,~o we ma~ 6e counted aa vo~e~
~A~b37 ~.~La re~uea~.
OARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION(ERS COMMUNITY
D V LOPM NT
April 13, 1992 ADMINISTRATOR
~RRYL.~R~.AICP
In 'compliance with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code you are hereby advised that Andrew E. Trautner has
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to define a Class-A
Mobile Home as a Single-Family detached dwelling unit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following
described property: The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of
Tract A of Taylor S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west. side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL)
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on
this petition at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, April 28
County Commission C: amh~ - ' , 1992 in
Bu' ' h .... rs, thmrd floc St. Luc~
~ldmng Annex, 2300 V' . . .. r of County Admini ·
· . mrgmnma AYenu · stratmon
mn~erested person° ---¢,- ~ · e, Fort Pmerce. Flnr~
time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing
~zuu~m~y To be heard at that
will also be considered.
Please note that all proceedin s
~ommi~s~oners of St. Lucie Count.. b~e~or~, the Board of County
~eco[aea. If a person decides t~~rmfla'. are electronicall~
~oard of Cou · . . ~P any ~ecision made by th~
nty Commmssmoners wmth respect to any matter considered
at such meeting or hearing, he w'
~r°cted~ngs, and that, for such .... 111. need a record of the
a verbatim record of th- - _~urpose, ne may need to ens ·
the t~--i _ proceedings is ma~ ~ ..... ure that
~o~m~,~ny anG evidence u~ ~,m~ ~' ~mcn recor~ includ~
~ ..... ~** ¢ne appeal ms to be base~.
Upon the reqUest of any party to the proceeding, individuals
testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any art
proceedings will be granted an o crt '' . P y to the
tim public hearings ma-- ~- -~ ._ r mt becomes
e. = ~ u~ continued from t~m~
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should
have any questions, additional information may be obtained by
Calling Area Code 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number
found below. South county residents may Call toll-free 878-4898,
and then ask for extension 1593.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMCSS¢ON RS COqNT¥, FLORIDA
File~os,~No~x~ MH-92-O01
K~EGER.
Dis~ri~
- - TR£FELNER, Disrria No. 4 · JIM MIN1X. Dis~i~ No.
Coun~ Adminis~ator _ JAMEs V. CH1SHO~
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce. FL 34982-5652
Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Grow~ Management: (407) 468- ~553 · Planning: (407) 46 B-1576
~oper~ Acquisitions: (407) 468-1 ~20 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1571
PORT ST. LUCtE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898
~o ~oraraL~,~Lonett oqLm
/Ip~,.Ll 16, 1772
~e ~h~ undett~L~ed a~e t~e~Lden~ o~ CAambettiaLn #eLgfi~a~, fChaaie~
37~ON~Z~ .OB~ECF ~o a~$on~n~ c~an~e ~oa a mo6gie ~ome ~n~le ~amgiy dwelling,
[25~J ~o' 6e placed, on de~c'~L6ed p~ope~.
~o~Lie fiome~ a~e ~Lne Ln ~fie p~ope~ pZace,~ucfi a~ a ac~e o~ Zand ou~
we~ o~ ~awn.oa Ln a mo6Lie florae paak, wfie~e ~fieae L~ ~upeavL~Lon o~
ma Ln~ennance.
~Je ~eei ~fia~g~ oouid~dee~ea~e ~fie value of ou~ fiome~ and
5Lnce none o~ u~ aae a$~e ~o a~end ~e dp~Li ~ mee~Ln~
~e~are ~u~mL~Ln~ ~L~ Ze~er a~ a ~aoup~o we may 6e counted a~ vo~e~
6 .,C.C,.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMUNITY
COMMISSION£RS DEV6LOPM6NT
ADMINISTRATOR
April 13, 1992
~RRYL.~R~,AICP
In 'compliance with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code you are hereby advised that Andrew E. Trautner has
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to define a Class-A
'Mobile Home as a Single-Family detached dwelling unit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following
described property: The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of
Tract A of Taylor S/D recOrded in plat book 9, page 12 of the
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin BouleVard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, FOrt Pierce' FL)
The Board of County Commiss~ioners will hold a public hearing on
this petition at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, Aprii 28, 1992 in St. Lucie
County Commission Chambers, third floor of County Administration
Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Ail
interested persons Will be given an opportunity to be heard at that
time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing
will also be considered.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered
at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the
proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the. testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals
testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the
proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes
time.necessary, these public· hearings may be continued from time to
If you no longer own property ad3acent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should
have any questions, additional information may be obtained bY
calling Area COde 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number
found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898
and then ask for extension 1593. ,
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~~ ~'J'~7~ ~'~ ~~TTT~ LUCIE COU~NTY, FLORIDA
- TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX. District No. 5
"/ Count, Adminis;'rator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administrator: (467) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-1 571
PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION£RS
April 13, 1992
COMMUNITY
D( V( LOPM£NT
ADMINISTRATOR
TERRY L. VIRTA, AICP
In compliance with the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code you are hereby advised that Andrew E. Trautner has
petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to define a Class-A
Mobile Home as a Single-Family detached dwelling unit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family, 4 du/ac) zoning for the following
described property: The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of
Tract A of Taylor S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL)
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on
this petition at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, April 28, 1992 in St. Lucie
County Commission Chambers, third floor of County Administration
Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All
interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that
time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing
will also be considered.
Please note that all proceedings before the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, are electronically
recorded. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered
at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the
proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals
testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the
proceedings will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any
individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes
necessary, these public hearings may be continued from time to
time.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described
parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner. If you should
have any questions, additional information may be obtained by
calling Area Code 407, 468-1593, and referencing the File Number
found below. South county residents may call toll-free 878-4898,
and then ask for extension 1593.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~ LUCtE_ COUNTY, FLORIDA
HAVERI .2 · JACK KRIEGER, District No. 3 · R. DALE TREFELNER. District No. 4 · JIM MINIX, District No. 5
t/ County Administrator -- JAMES V. CHISHOLM
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administrator: (407) 468-1590 · Growth Management: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-t576
Property Acquisitions: (407) 468-1720 · Codes Compliance: (407) 468-157t ~,
PORT ST. LUCIE TELEPHONE NO. (407) 878-4898 ~,
Stuart News and- .....
The Port St. Lueie News
(an edition of The Stuart News)
OF COUNTY COMMIssiONERS
PUBUC HEARING AGENDA
T0 WHOM' iT
the St.I
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN: COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE:
Before the undersigned authority appeared KATHY H.
PRITCHARD wile on oath says that he/she ACCTS REC
M~AGER ( ~ ....
- )[ .! I~e 8tuart News, and The Port St. 14, cie Nexxus,
a daily newspaper Pul>lished at Stuart in Martin got.~ty, Florida,
that the attached copy of advertisement, bei.g a
~lic Not 5 ~e
in the matter of
St. Lucie Land DeveloDment Code
iii tile
Cot rt, ~wts I't,l~lished ill The
~St. ttart News and The Port St. Lueie News in the issues of
~ril 7, 1992
advertiseme,!t.
8worn to and subscribed before me
Affiant further says that the said The 'Stuart Nexvs and The
Port St. l.t, eie News is a ~vspaper pt, l)lished at Stuart, in said
Martin Oouuty, Florida with offices and paid eireulati(.~ iu
Mm-tin Country, Florida, and St. Lueie County, Floricln n.d that
the said -exxcspapers have heretofore been eo-ti~mously pui~lished_
in said Mm'tin County, Fl6rida a.d distributed i. Martin County,
Florida a.d St. Lueie County, Florida, for a period of m~e year
next preeedi.g the first publication of the attached copy of
advertiseme.t; and affiant further says that he/she has neither
paid nor promised m~y person, firm or corporation auv discount,
rebate, eommissio~ or refund for the purpose of securing tDis
aclvertisemei~t for publication i. the said newspaper: The Stuart
News has bee. entered as see(md class matter nt the post office
in Stuart Martin Cotmty, ~orma, and Ft. Pierce, St. Lueie
, F' ' '
County, Florida m~d has been for a period of one year .ext
preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
re'ordeal'in plat book 9, page 12 of
the public r~cords of St tuc4e Coun-
so~ ~ CMmbdflin' ~uldgaid'"o.
the w~t side 6f Old 'Diiie High-
3). ~lli~a~[ Carol DoJoa>f~ a
ofs sing[~qmilE~}den~ with
tached ~[ ddck en~baching '25
seback undrape D.,4Ode~v~
Shoreline Pro~on Ordi~ance"in
RS-3 (~esidentiali Singb Family-- 3
du/ac) zoning fdt'~e following dy
J Lot 1 t;.Blockt;~Rain~ Forest un-
ki~ C~n~LCommissi~ cham~s]
fhi~8 flor ~.Cogn~ Admin~ration
B0ildiagAaa~]~300 ~rginia A~
28,~ ~2~innifi~ ~f 9:00 KM. et
as ~K'm~e;~ds: poss~le.
PURSOANT JO:S~ion 286.01
F~r(da St~, if a ~rson d~idm
~p~ to any mawr ~nsid~ at
a m~ing or h~ring, he will ~e~
r~ord of the pr~ings, and
for such purpose, he may need ~
ensure that a v~batim r~ord of the
proce~jngs is ~ade, ~ich ~d
includes t~'t~imony and evidence
u~n whkh ~e ap~l is to ~
bas~.
-; ~--.,._ BOARD OF
COUNTy 'CO~ISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNt, FLORIDA
/S/JiM M NIX, CHAIR~N
Transmit Conf irmat ion
No. : 001
fT,F~ ,
,.-..._.ce ~ ,,..'e r : 76-/221~i26
Date : A~,r 02~92
Time : Ol '30
hlode : Norm
Pages : 02
Resu!t : OK
Report
11:12
BOARD OF COUNTY D(EV(ELOPM(ENT
COMMISSION(ERS D IR(ECTOR
fERRY L VIRTA. AICP
(407) 468-1735
TRANSMISSION COVER FORM
DATE: ~
SENDER:~
PHONE:
HAVERT L F£NN. Disrria No. 1 · JUDY CULPEPP£R. District No. 2 · JACK KRIEG£R. District No. 3 · R. DAt. E ]REFELNER. District No. 4 * JIM MINIX. Distict No. S
_ County Administrator _ JAMES V CHtSHOt3v~
- 2,300 Virginia~Avenue · For~' Pierce. ~L ,34982-5652 -
Director: (407) 468-1590 - Building: (407) 468-1553 · Planning: (407) 468-1576
Zoning: (407) 468-155`3 e Code Enforcement: (407) 468-1571
PORT SL LUCtE ]-ELEPHO~,,E NO. (407) 878-4898
ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
APRIL 28, 1992
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 11 00.03 of
the St. Lucie County Land Development C .
the ~f~v_.%s~ns 9f the St. Lucie Count~, ~1-a-~d l~ accordance with
St. ~u~x~ uountv Boa~ ^~ .... i~ u~-pi~nens1ve Pi ,
~ ~ ~z ~ounry Commis~'-- ~ that the
request as follows: ~-~,,=z~ conslGer their
1). Wayne and Julia Shewchuk to operate a boarding stable in AR-1
(Agricultural, Residential, 1 du/ac) zoning for the following
described property:
Lot 14, Block ~ St. Lucie Gardens, Sec. 14, T36S, R40E.
(Location: 1,600 feet east of Silver Oak Drive, 1/2 mile north of
Tilton Rd on the north side of McQuillen Rd).
2). Andrew E. Trautner for a Class A Mobile Home permit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) zoning for the
following described property:
The north 77.27 feet of the east 179.0 feet of Tract A of
Taylor S/D recorded in plat book 9, page 12 of the public
records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile south of Chamberlin Boulevard on
the west side of Old.Dixie Highway).
3). William & Carol Dolan for a variance to permit the
construction of a single family residence with attached pool
deck encroaching 25 feet into the required 50 ft. shoreline
setback under the St. Lucie River Shoreline Protection
Ordinance in RS-3 (Residential, Single Family - 3 du/ac)
zoning for the following described property:
Lot 11, Block 1, Raintree Forest unrecorded S/D
(Location: Wilderness Drive South, Ft. Pierce, FL)
Meeting Will be held in the St. Lucie County Commission
Chambers, third floor of County Administration Building Annex, 2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on April 28, 1992 beginning
at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible.
PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florida Statute '..
to appeal any decision made b,- a ~ ..... s, ifa person decides
respect to an~, ** ...... ~__, ~zu, agency, or commission wi~ ~ ma .... ~,,o=u~ a~ a meeting or hearing, he wi
need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he
may need to ensure tha~ a verbatim record of the proceedings is
themade, appeal whiCh is record to be includes based, the testimony and evidence upon which
PUBLISH DATE:
APRIL 7, 1992
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
/S/ JIM MINIX, CHAIRMAN
R E 0 U E S T
REGULAR
REQUEST
PRESENTATION
DATE March 31, 1992
SPECIAL
PUBLIC
HEARING
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT:
_CONSENT 4-07-92
WORK
SESSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING (permission to advertise)
Consider authorizing a public hearing on April 28, 1992 to review
the petitions of:
1)
2)
Wayne and Julia Shewchuk for a Conditional Use permit to
operate a boarding stable in AR-1 (Agricultural Residential
1 du/ac) zoning. , -
Andrew E. Trautner for a Class A Mobile Home permit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) zoning.
William and Carol Dolan for a variance to permit the
construction of a single family residence with attached pool
deck encroaching 25 feet into the required 50 ft. shoreline
setback under the St. Lucie River Shoreline Protection
Ordinancezoning, in RS-3 (Residential, Single Family - 3 du/ac)
3)
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the scheduling of the requested public hearings.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER 151000
(SPECIFY IF BUDGE~ENDM~pU~ IS REQUIRED)
Teryy L. -V~r~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CONCURRENCE: ~~f-{
~hol~--
C~un~ Administrator
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE: 4/7/92
Please proceed as approved by the Board.
A G E N D A
R E Q U E S T
DATE March 31, 1992
REGULAR SPECIAL
REQUEST PUBLIC
PRESENTATION HEARING
ITEM DESCRIPTION - SUBJECT:
CONSENT 4-07-92
WORK
SESSION
COMMUNITY DEUELOPMENT - PLANNING (permission to advertise)
Consider authorizing a public hearing on April 28 1992 to review
the petitions of: '
1)
Wayne and Julia Shewchuk for a Conditional Use permit to
operate a boarding stable in AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential -
1 du/ac) zoning.
2)
3)
Andrew E. Trautner for a Class A Mobile Home permit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) zoning.
William and Carol Dolan for a variance to permit the
construction of a single family residence with attached pool
deck encroaching 25 feet into the required 50 ft. shoreline
setback under the St. Lucie River Shoreline Protection
Ordinance in RS-3 (Residential, Single Family - 3 du/ac)
zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the scheduling of the requested public hearings.
FUNDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT NUMBER 151000
IF BUDGE~ENDMF~~ IS REQUIRED)
(
SPECIFY
PRESENTED BY: ~,4~g~ ~/~
~ -Terry L. -V~r~f~a DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CONCURRENCE:
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE:
James V. Chisholm
County Administrator
COMMISSION REVIEW: April 07, 1992
CONSENT AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
County Commission
Community Development Administrator
March 31, 1992
Permission to Advertise
Below you will find identification of public hearing requests
that are ready for presentation for final review. Staff would
request that authorization be given for advertising so that these
petitions may be presented on April 28, 1992, at 9:00 A.M. or as
soon thereafter as possible. If you have any questions, please let
us know.
Wayne and Julia Shewchuk for a Conditional Use permit to
operate a boarding stable in AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -
1 du/ac) zoning. '
e
(Location: North side of McQuillen Road (private road),
1,600 feet east of Silver Oak Drive.
Andrew E. Trautner for a Class A Mobile Home permit in RS-4
(Residential, Single Family - 4 du/ac) zoning.
(Location: Approximately 1/4 mile South of Chamberlin
Boulevard on the West side of Old Dixie Highway.
William and Carol Dolan for a variance to permit the
construction of a single family residence with attached pool
deck encroaching 25 feet into the required 50 ft. shoreline
setback under the St. Lucie River Shoreline Protection
Ordinance in RS-3 (Residential Single Family - 3 du/ac)
zoning. '
(Location: Wilderness Drive South Ft Pierce FL)
TLV/cb , ' ,
PERMISSION.MEM(BCC)
cc: County Administrator
County Attorney
Planning Director
petition file
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM 92-52
Director of Engineering
Property Acquisition Directo~
April 16, 1992
Old Dixie Hwy.
MH-92-001/Trautner, Andrew E.
Attached you will find 'the following on the above mentioned
project:
Review Record
Report Form
The right-of-way needs determination is needed in our office by
April 20, 1992, for submission to Planning and Zoning for their
deadline of April 23, 1992.
Attachment
JM/BV/gk
cc: Development Administrator
~Planning and Zoning
Development Review Committee
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
PETmON TO DEFINE A
CLASS A MOBILE HOME AS A
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLING UNIT
DIRECTIONS
Please complete the requested information below and submit all
items to the St. Lucle'County Department of Community Development,
Planning Division, 2300 Virginia Avenue,
A ~ ~ . Room 203, Ft. Pierce,
Florida. 11 applications must be accompanied by the proper
application fee or they cannot be accepted for processing.
ALL TYPES ~ $500
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ~T.T. INFORMATION.
PLEASE USE BLUE OR BLACK INK ONLY.
Following certification of completeness, this petition will be
scheduled for the next available Board of County Commissioners
meeting. Allow a minimum of 30-45 days for completion of the
public hearing process following the certification of this
petition.
1.)
SPECIAL NOTICE:
Under the provisions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, a
petition for Class A:Moble Home determination is considered to be a FINAL
DEVELOPMENT OEDER. ~3~de~ th? d~finition of Final Development order, and
consistent with une countys concurrency regulations, .suffiCient
capacities must be demonstrated in all area of required level of service
before this petition can be approved, should it be determined that
insufficient services exist, no Final Development Order will be issued
until the cited deficiencies are corrected. For additional information
please contact the Department of Community Deve!opment, Growth Management
Division, Room201, St. Lucie County A~m{nist~atiOh Building.
Please review the attached application information from Section
11.05.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code before
completing the application.
Describe the exterior finish of the mobile home:
Describe the exterior finish of the roof:
Describe the skirting m~terials to be used:
10. Required Attachments (please check each one attached):
a. ~_ Elevations and photographs of all sides of the Class A
Mobile Home, including exterior walls and roof.
Proof that the Class A Mobile Home has met the
Mobile Homes Construction and Safety Standard
U.S. Department of Housin~ =~ ,,-~-- ~ . s of the
standards of Se ion Rgm o~o .... pm nt, and the
ct___ ~~v.ozo, ~&orz~a Statutes.
~'~A plot plan drawn to scale illustrating
use and including the following:
1. Location of the property by lot
number, and street address, if any.
the proposed
number, block
e
0
The location of trees of four (4") inches diameter
or greater, other natural features Of unique or
significant character, and proposed landscaping
within fifty (50') feet of the proposed location
for the Class A Mobile Home.
The dimensions of the lot or parcel of land on
which the Class 'A Mobile Home is to be located.
The location of the proposed Class A Mobile Home
on the property, including all setback information.
A schematic design of the Ci'ass A Mobile Home
the roof, skirtings, and other improvements.
showing
3
PR# '
ST. LU~IE ~OI~NT¥
BP#:.,,
APPLICATIO~ FOR CON~URI%ENCy TEST
Type of DevelOpment Order:
' Single Family Building Permit (a)
, Other Building Permit (c)
JClass A Mobile Home Permit
.. Mobile Home and RV Tie Down Permit
~Conditional Use Permit
Variance Approval
Lot Split
FEE: $25.00
(b)
a) vested capacity if-Single Family Residence
efore January 9- ~990 ^- _k .... on a Lot of Record on
(b) vested caVe'it,, i$'-~au o~ a~ approved subdivision or site nlan- or
=_ . ~ - ~=~uemenn oz an exist' . ~ ~"'
(c) the following builain .... ~ - .. ~g structure,
~ ncurrency test: -roe . ~ PP .ns are exem t from
.-~ m additions, accesso ~ . the
zences, walls sm ns. . .fy structures, sw~mm~n
~_~ ·. _ g., screen rooms, ut~l~ ..... ~ .... - g pools,
~uu~er non ~esmdent~al use; .... ~ ~uus~ar~ons ~ accessory to
2. Type of
3. Is the property part of an approved site plan or subdivision?
~ Yes No If yes, please give name of development:
4 Legal D
' escrlptlon and tax ID#: (Include Street Address if available)'
Se
sr: h\wp\document \concurt
Estimated Date of Construction:
Begin: ~~/ /~_ , Completion:
Owner's Name
Owner Address
City State
Signature of Owner/Agent for owner
Agent Address
State
Zip
Phone #
Nov 20, 1991
STATE OF FLORIDA/DilRS
ST L[ICIE GODNTY PUBLIG iiEALTil [INIT
OSDS REPAIR PERNIT APPLICATION
CITY,,
OHNER ADDRESS.
ONNER CITY
STATE. /~-// ZIP ~ ~/~
COHNERGIAL RESIDENTIAL ~
CURRENT SYSTEH SIZE TANK ~/~/~/~ /~~
PROBABLE CAUSE(S) OF ffAII, URE AND ItOH DETERHIHED
BUILDIHG AGE. >~.~~ ..
REPAIR CONTRACTOR
LIC {$
-- -llealth Department Uae Only .........
CONSTRUCTION PERNIT & APPROVAL
glHAL I. HSPgUTIOH .gQUI.gD (y/H, ~(/ .
INSPECTION DATE. BY
NOTES
CAPITOL PORTLAND CEMENTIB RICK-LOK MASONRY CEMENT
sUPER.MIX--PRE-MIXED CEMENT PRODUCTS
/
/
/
PLANT/ORDER CENTER
MARTINSBURG, WV
TEL: 800-624-8986
WV ONLY: 800-222-8966
DISTRIBUTION TERMINAL
4601 ASHLAND AVENUE
BALTIMORE, MD 21205
TEL: (301) 732-5620
City of Ft. Pierce City o~ Port St. Lucie~/~<~St- Lucie Village
AccoUNT NUMBER
AMOUNT
Customer
Canary Finance
TOTAL AMT. REC'D $