A City of Tampa hearing officer on Dec. 5 considered whether a two‑unit structure at 4312 West Laurel Street should be recognized as a lawful nonconforming duplex, a status that would allow the use to continue despite zoning changes.

City zoning staff told the hearing they found no building permit showing the structure was authorized as a duplex when it was constructed. “It comes down to the property appraiser says it was built in 1962, and the zoning went into effect for the R‑1 zoning in 1956,” zoning administrator Aaron (Eric) Cotton told the hearing, summarizing staff’s position that the structure post‑dates the zoning change that prohibited duplexes.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mark Bentley, said the absence of an original permit should not be dispositive because older city records have been purged. Bentley urged the officer to credit a range of circumstantial records — including a Citus/Situs card the city maintains, multiple Polk (Pope) directory listings showing separate occupancies for units A and B across decades, property‑appraiser records, and recent photos showing two front stoops and two meters — to conclude the duplex has been continuously used and lawfully established. “So they trash or purge all their records, then they turn around and throw the property owner’s face saying, hey, you should have had a permit,” Bentley said in closing.

Petitioner witness Ian Ryan Manasseh, who previously worked in Tampa zoning, testified that the city’s Citus/Situs database includes four indicators that the parcel is a duplex (addressing that shows Units A and B, a unit count of “2,” and a duplex land‑use code). He said staff historically relied on Citus for determining last legal use when original permits were missing.

City counsel replied that Citus aggregates information from multiple sources — including property‑appraiser records and 9‑1‑1 addressing — and that Citus entries do not necessarily prove a formally issued building permit existed. City counsel also emphasized the statutory and code standard that the petitioner bears the burden of proof in a formal‑decision review and that staff’s denial rested on absence of documentary proof that the duplex was lawfully permitted when built.

Both sides invoked legal standards. Bentley cited appellate decisions and the city’s land‑use element language on equitable estoppel and vested rights to argue the doctrine can prevent enforcement of a more restrictive zoning rule where a property owner reasonably relied on government records or conduct. City counsel countered that the relevant code provisions require evidence of lawful establishment and that staff properly denied recognition where no permit has been located in the corporate permitting records relied upon by city reviewers.

There was no public comment. The hearing officer closed the evidence and asked both parties to submit proposed recommended orders by Dec. 17, saying he would accept the exhibits referenced and requested that counsel clearly identify exhibits by letter or number. The officer closed the hearing on FDN25156 without issuing a decision at the session.

Next procedural step: parties will file proposed recommended orders by Dec. 17, after which the hearing officer will decide whether to reverse the zoning administrator’s formal decision or to uphold it.