Are two townhomes on one lot illegal?
I have written about the ugly cookie cutter townhomes that have been popping up in the Center Grove and now it seems that they are illegal. An R2 zoned lot cannot have two separate homes on it and most of these townhomes hold two separate residences. Some even have more.A reader has informed me that indeed, the sale of townhouses/condos of R2 properties (duplex) are illegal.
A couple of neighbors asked for almost four years for a legal opinion from their district commissioner, Joe Sanchez, after he promised them one at a meeting held in April 2005. They knew that two folios/two owners on a property zoned R2 was illegal. They insisted on a legal opinion. It never came.
Finally, through Commissioner Tomas Regalado they were able to obtain a legal opinion. The PDF of that is here.
Aside from the drastic change of the character of their neighborhood (old Spanish), according to the neighbors, the fact that this was allowed for so long had very damaging consequences to all the owners of R2 property that have two units -- the county has removed the homestead exemption from half the property. Therefore, increasing the property taxes.
Elderly neighbors are being forced out because they cannot come up with the difference, which is in the thousands of dollars, with their fixed income. One neighbor, 91-years-old, had his tax deed bought by someone and the outcome is that he has a couple of weeks to move out.
Just another consequence of the greed that goes on in the name of progress. But I guess if you are foolish enough to buy one of these things, then you should pay the exorbitant taxes that go with them.
posted by Tom Falco at 8:00 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
25 Comments:
not to mention the illegal parking of that maroon SUV....
This is an interesting subject. What about duplex lots transformed into four+ unit dwellings?
We rent a unit in a new development and no utility, city, or county body will acknowledge the building as a four unit dwelling (the developers are in debt and the bank has assigned the leases so they don't give a rat). Even the tax assessor still has it as two unit.
On all communications we are "rear unit". The folks who didn't get "front unit" still have problems hooking into any grid because they have no acknowledged billing address.
Yet the developers received building and occupancy permits?
Neighborhoods first...
HA!
What's funny is that the picture here is not of a new or even recently built residence. The place pictured has been there since at least 2002. In fact, a close friend of mine rented it 7 years ago. There are many examples of what Grape is talkin about, but most are located a block north and a block or two west of this location, where it appears they are growing faster than weeds in a cracked sidewalk.
Again, we have another example of our city officials not knowing how the laws they represent even operate. This is also the case in regard to many special district 2 business and restaurant regulations.
I guess all your friends on Gifford lane are dumb since that street is loaded with these types of residences.
Note: Grape switched the pic to one of the obvious violators instead of the pre-existing residence. Just wanted to avoid comments asking if I was crazy, etc.
Yes sorry, about that. I meant to use this photo, I had picked it up from an earlier post and chose the wrong one by mistake.
...they knew, they just played dumb. This is happening in most districts. Where was our zoning guru when the problem started years ago? I was also told that Coconut Grove "love" this townhouses. Is this true?
No offense Grape, but is it really in the best interest of the Grove to threaten the status of hundreds of your neighbors (including me) who have bought duplex townhouses in the Center and West Grove in the last several years? The time to bring this up was BEFORE the townhomes were built. The fact is that instead of having poorly maintained duplexes rented out to students by absentee landlords, most of the newer townhomes are owner occupied by residents who are part of this community.
Also, in my experience each of the folios has a homestead exemption, but you do have to file for it when the property is deeded. Maybe the elderly person you mentioned failed to do that?
Ms. Niemeyer: Are you asking that this practice continue, to allow something illegal just because? The question was asked years ago, BEFORE many of these, perhaps even your home, were built. Those that purchased are not in danger of having to give up their homes. What's done is done. The question is, should this illegal practice continue? No. Illegal is ILLEGAL.
As for your question of the elder person, ask around to those that have legal duplex, one folio, about their homestead and taxes. You'll find the answer to your question. According to our zoning code for duplex, one owner - one folio.
In my area, most of those that live in one of these buildings are renters, not owners. So we still have the same problem, renters instead of owners. Just wait until they start using the rooftop for parties!
Besides the cookie cutter look, have you noticed that they have no room for landscaping? Everything is paved, very little green. I wonder what the back looks like? Probably no room to plant a tree, just shrubs. Know anyone in the bamboo business?
I wouldn't take a memo for Tony E. Crapp to heart - look him up and see what a mess he did at the County.
The Townhomes are here, they brought in new and fresh young residents, raised the tax base of the city, and are changing the central grove in a better way.
Don't mess with a good thing.
Get your facts straight, and read the memo. First the memo is TO Tony Crapp.
Second Tony Crapp Jr has been the chief of staff for Tomas Regalado for the past 14 years, he hired him fresh out of college
Where do any of you writing in live exactly? How about putting photos up of your own residences and we can decide collectively whether they contribute anything positive to the Grove "experience", whether they are or should be illegal, or whether they should have been built in the first place? What about it? Where do you live, you arbiters of good taste? Let's see how immaculate and perfectly suited your places are...
This is not whether they should be illegal, they are illegal. If you like them, petition the city to create a zoning for them and see how the community will respond to it. You might be surprised, not many like them...Coconut Grove Kendall or Kendall Grove.
Anonymous at 9:15, click on ugly cooke cutter townhomes. Some of the pictures are there.
Michelle, shame on you. You are a lawyer you should know better. You are also admitting you have been duped!
Those residences, illegally built or not are still inarguably butt ugly. Imagine if beautifully-designed and landscaped homes with tasteful continuity (not cookie-cutter-mentality continuity, but French Village in the Gables style continuity) were there instead. Center Grove would be a welcoming and charming place, consistent with South and North Grove neighborhoods.
How could they have gone so wrong?
I think it's perfectly valid to bring up the fact that these duplexes were illegally built, both to create awareness, and hopefully, activism so they don't continue being built!
Wow, this whole thing stinks like crap. Speaking of crap, I wonder if Tony Crapp floats or sinks when he's in the pool? I imagine sometimes he could be nutty or corny too. Its no wonder he'd like to wipe these homes away.
After reading the document, it seems that the main problem is the dual ownership of the lot residences. Sneaky developers that went around the City to get to the County who clearly didnt give a Tony Crapp. Now its become a skidmark in our community that unfortunately cant just be washed away. You have people living in these homes. You cant just give em the boot. In my condo building, there arent supposed to be dogs over 20 lbs. However, that policy was ignored and we have had huge dogs living in there and Tony Crapp-ing everywhere. You cant just boot someone out because they were allowed to break the rules in the first place without penalty. It sucks but its reality.
No sympathy for those who complain now. Where were you when Grovites stood up and said wait! Watching, some Joe poison trees so the pool would fit into those monstrosities, or actually watching the payola pass from hand to hand so they could get permits to pass. What was a two car family is now 3 cars per unit blocking our sidewalks.
In response to the last two post, why is Tony Crapp even mentioned? The request came from the office of Commissioner Regalado. Tony Crapp himself CANNOT request a legal opinion. It can only be requested by the Mayor, City Manager or a Commissioner. No credibility goes to your type of attitude with a serious problem.
A legal opinion was asked for 4 years by residents, and they were ignored. So it doesn't matter how many Grovites stand together and scream, if a legal opinion was not requested, the powers that be were playing dumb and let it happen. If the problem was brought to the attention of the building and zoning department, they are the source of the problem. If they don't know the difference between one folio and two, and what it means, they should be fired from that position. They obviously don't know.
It seems like this problem is widespread, not just a Grove problem. Obviously someone out of the Grove actually received the opinion and not by their district commissioner (read the article). It took 4 years to get. Why does a homeowner and resident have to wait so long to get anything from people that we, the taxpayers, pay salaries to do a job?
Tony Crapp was mentioned for the pure comedy that is his name. I guarantee there is at least one person who giggles/cracks up when he is introduced in a room. I would be in stitches laughing if he were my neighbor. "Hello, Mr. Crapp! You look wiped today."
We need more complexes that look like the French Villas on Jackson. not the best quality building but the look is incredible.
These condos look better than downtown Coconut Grove. What a hodge podge hokey mess that is. You can wax and wane nostalgic all day but beautiful Coconut Grove is no more.
Post a Comment
<< Home