Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate reopens Sarasota code hearing over storage at 0 North Washington Boulevard, seeks to decide whether uses are grandfathered
Summary
A Sarasota magistrate continued a long‑running code‑enforcement hearing over 0 North Washington Boulevard to decide whether vehicle, boat and construction‑material storage on the parcel are grandfathered nonconforming uses. Owner Rodney Desberg testified to continuous use since the 1980s; the City argued many uses are accessory or not primary and therefore not grandfathered. The magistrate admitted recent photos into evidence, will review prior hearing video and continued the case for closing arguments.
The magistrate reconvened a continuation of case 202300293 concerning 0 North Washington Boulevard (Parcel ID 2025160020) and said she will perform statutory construction of the City's land‑development code before applying the facts. She told parties she does not independently recall the prior hearing and will rely on the recording and the newly submitted materials to determine whether the present outdoor storage is a lawful grandfathered use or an unlawful, non‑conforming use.
City attorney Ms. Aiello told the magistrate that the City stands on the prior record and documentary evidence and argued that under the City's zoning table and definitional sections a primary permitted use must exist before accessory uses attach. "You cannot have an accessory use without a primary use on the property," Ms. Aiello said, summarizing the City's position that most of the storage and equipment the respondent claims are not allowable primary uses in the City's zoning district and therefore cannot be grandfathered as primary uses.
Respondent Rodney Desberg, introduced and sworn to testify, said he acquired two lots comprising the current parcel in 1986 and 1989 and used them intermittently but continuously as storage and for business support. Desberg said the property historically supported his businesses (Thoroughbred Motors/Thoroughbred Development) and described on‑site materials including construction supplies, scaffolding, cinder blocks, granite and marble slabs, telehandlers, excavators, boats and storage containers. On the record he said some items had been retained as usable supplies rather than abandoned waste. "There's always something stored there," Desberg testified when asked if the site had been unused for six consecutive months.
The magistrate received updated aerial photographs and accepted composite exhibits for the record while noting that evidentiary objections about foundation and weight go to credibility. Defense counsel asked the magistrate to review the video of the earlier hearing; the magistrate agreed and asked the parties to provide a link. Desberg also submitted recent photographs (taken 04/19/2026 and offered as composite Exhibit 6) that show granite slabs, boom lifts, a telehandler, excavators, boats and stacked construction materials; the City and respondent later agreed to circulate printable copies for the file.
The core legal question the magistrate said she will decide is whether the activities on the parcel are (1) primary uses that were lawfully established before the City's 2002 ordinance, and therefore grandfathered as nonconforming uses, or (2) accessory or new uses that require current zoning approvals. The City pointed to code sections (the zoning table cited by counsel and definitional language on junkyard/storage) to argue that the claimed uses do not qualify as grandfathered primary uses; the respondent pointed to deeds, surveys and testimony about continuous business activity to support grandfathering.
The magistrate kept the hearing record open for the parties to exchange and print the photographic evidence, said she will review the prior hearing video to refresh her recollection of earlier testimony, and set times for closing arguments and continuation. The hearing was paused for a break and will resume for closing arguments the following day in the commission chambers.
Aside from the technical zoning dispute, the record shows several operational details the magistrate may weigh: Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car leases the frontage portion of the property to park rental vehicles; Desberg said containers on the parcel hold perishable construction materials and that, by his account, he does not keep salvage waste on site for resale. The City continues to assert the burden of proof that the present intensity and character of storage is inconsistent with grandfathered primary uses in the City's zoning code.
The magistrate’s next procedural steps are to review the previous hearing video, evaluate the submitted photographs and documentary exhibits, and hear closing arguments before issuing a ruling on whether the property's uses are grandfathered or require enforcement action under City code.
