This condo, on 30a near Monteray, has 3 units on three floors and very large. We were here when they were built and went to the developers presentation. They were approved, built and sold as 3 bedroom units with the appropriate, minimal parking(9 spaces). Here is my question, they are being advertised as 5BR/4bath units. Obviously the parking available is nowhere near the 15 spaces required and there is absolutely nowhere to expand. The builder used every available square inch for the building. Is there any recourse for the neighbors? They have been used as rentals and cars have had to park out on the county right of way and side streets in neighborhoods across the street.
Taganale absolute auction
- Thread starter tsutcli
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I would think you could go to the county with the approved plan and what was actually built and get them to intervene.
I live across the street and there are only 6 parking spaces, 2 per unit and to get into 4 of the spaces you have to make a tight right turn where there is no room for it. Drive your Mini Cooper if you're buying one of these units!
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see if they can sell. Once listed at $4 million and $4.25 million, they have never sold, to my knowledge. They have always been advertised as a 4 bdrm and a 5bdrm unit, since day one, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
wrobert is correct, if you want to address the issue, get it on the BCC Agenda (Board of County Commissioners).
wrobert is correct, if you want to address the issue, get it on the BCC Agenda (Board of County Commissioners).
Contacted Kevin Hargett , code official, who told me these were originally approved as 3 BR units only. He is supposed to be looking into this. We'll see. Typical of what builders have done and continue to do to avoid the issue of adequate parking.
From my understanding Mr. Tag was going to live in the top unit, sell the other two.
From my understanding Mr. Tag was going to live in the top unit, sell the other two.
Last edited:
Regional Utilities seems to care about fixture units. It's public record.
what are the range of remedies that the g men could mete out against offending units?
could they order a dividing bedroom wall crushed, to make two bedrooms into a larger master suite?
lol
could they order a dividing bedroom wall crushed, to make two bedrooms into a larger master suite?
lol
I'm sure things like this are in the minutes of the DO.
I don't think anyone who may be renting or living in these units would be driving anything less than an Escalade or some such monster vehicle. I'll bet you couldn't get more than 3 of those in their parking lot and still have any room to manuever. Should be interesting the day of the auction when people try to find spots. lol
That is correct, tustcli. The owner was planning to have a free gulf front home (condo) after selling the other two units.
As for what the County could do, yes, they could make the owner comply, on paper anyway. Much like the houses on the east end, which the developer added an extra floor or two on a couple of houses. The BCC ordered the owner to comply. The only problem is that the homes were ICF construction (insulated concrete form) and they will be expensive to alter. Also, taking off one or two floors would change the layout of the houses greatly, requiring redesign. It will probably cost less to tear the homes down and start from scratch. I said that there was only one problem, and that isn't true. The other problem is that the owner of record was reportedly having financial troubles and the lender was taking the homes back. I cannot see the lender spending money needed to comply. They would have to pay to have the houses torn down, then, be stuck with an empty lot!
As for what the County could do, yes, they could make the owner comply, on paper anyway. Much like the houses on the east end, which the developer added an extra floor or two on a couple of houses. The BCC ordered the owner to comply. The only problem is that the homes were ICF construction (insulated concrete form) and they will be expensive to alter. Also, taking off one or two floors would change the layout of the houses greatly, requiring redesign. It will probably cost less to tear the homes down and start from scratch. I said that there was only one problem, and that isn't true. The other problem is that the owner of record was reportedly having financial troubles and the lender was taking the homes back. I cannot see the lender spending money needed to comply. They would have to pay to have the houses torn down, then, be stuck with an empty lot!