My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/12/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
5/12/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:18 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:34:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/12/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
by the present tenants, then the grandfathered clause would cease <br />to be in effect. Commissioner Bird stated he is not in favor of <br />evicting any family which is presently there and cannot qualify <br />or find other housing. <br />Commissioner Eggert wondered at what point this would stop <br />because this is happening all over the County, and Chairman <br />Scurlock felt the social issue of whether to provide appropriate <br />housing and fund that housing is a separate issue from the Zoning <br />Code. If assistance needs to take place for needy families, that <br />is not a planning and zoning issue; that is a welfare human <br />resources type of issue. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt this could trigger a review of how <br />housing is being handled in the County, and perhaps there is a <br />point where the private sector could come in and give some real <br />help to the people in the community. However, we must maintain <br />the validity of our code enforcement rules. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that under Alternative #2, we will <br />be unable to prevent mobile homes being installed in there in the <br />future. <br />Commissioner Wheeler asked how many mobile homes in that <br />area were not in compliance at present, and Director Keating <br />believed there are approximately 12, but pointed out how <br />difficult it is to determine if they are in compliance. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the burden of proof is on the <br />homeowner, not the Planning Department. <br />Lorenzo Lattimore, Code Enforcement Board Case #86-088, <br />stated that his mobile home is his residence and he pays taxes on <br />it. He admitted that he does not like the mobile home and would <br />like to have a new house, but he does not. He told the <br />Commission to do whatever they have to do, but cautioned that if <br />he is kicked out of his mobile home, he intends to puta tent on <br />the property and live in it. Mr. Lattimore explained 'that his <br />piece of property is for sale, and if it sells, he would move far <br />MAY 12 1987 <br />29 <br />BOOK AE�� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.