Laserfiche WebLink
F, <br />BOOK61b F <br />result would "make permanent" certain nonconformities and would <br />increase the degree of nonconformity of the subject site. Based on <br />this determination, staff denied the applicant's concurrency <br />certificate application to allow the replacement of the mobile home <br />with a site -built residence. It should be noted that the <br />concurrency certificate application was denied due to non- <br />conformity issues, not due to any concurrency or level of service <br />constraints. <br />Attorney Bruce Barkett, on behalf of property owner Doris Jackson <br />and family member Mike Loudermilk, appealed staff's denial of the <br />proposal to replace a mobile home with a site -built. residence on <br />the subject parcel. The appeal was filed pursuant to the <br />provisions of LDR section 902.07. At its meeting of March 26, <br />1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 2 to grant the <br />appeal and overturn staff's decision and determination. The reason <br />given for overturning staff's decision was because "...staff failed <br />to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan <br />and LDRs of Indian River County and because of common sense." [see <br />attachment #61. Pursuant to the provisions of section 902.07(5), <br />staff is now appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's <br />decision to grant the applicant's appeal and overturn staff's <br />decision. There are essentially two reasons for staff's appeal: <br />1. the Planning and Zoning Commission made no -specific findings <br />that provide staff direction regarding non -conformity <br />interpretations for proposals similar to the subject case; and <br />2. the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision has significant <br />effect on past county policy and interpretations regarding <br />non -conforming mobile homes located outside of mobile home <br />parks. <br />It is staff's opinion that the Board of County Commissioners should <br />review the Planning and Zoning Commission decision since the <br />decision effectively reverses a long-standing .county policy <br />regarding the treatment of non -conforming mobile homes located <br />outside of mobile home parks. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: <br />Site Analysis <br />Several nonconformities exist on the subject site. First, the <br />subject property is a single parcel, yet two independent dwelling <br />units are located on it as follows: <br />• A mobile home (trailer) which was placed on the parcel in <br />1971, and <br />• A site built residence constructed on the site in 1936. <br />The location of two separate dwelling units on a single parcel does <br />not conform to the county's requirement that single family <br />residences be located on separate, buildable parcels [reference <br />911.04(3)(b)6.]. Furthermore, neither the RFD nor the A-1 zoning <br />district allow the use of a mobile home as an on-going residence. <br />Lastly, the subject site exceeds the AG -1 one unit per five acre <br />maximum density. Thus, there are essentially three conformities <br />related to the site: <br />50 <br />_I <br />