Laserfiche WebLink
APR 2 8 1992 <br />This "example" parcel is located in the A-1 zoning district <br />(Agriculture up to 1 unit/5 acres) and has 4 units on a single <br />parcel containing ±l acre. Two of the units are mobile homes <br />situated on a slab. For a case such as this, the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission's decision has clear implications. Applying the <br />precedent of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to this <br />case, 2 site -built units could replace 2 mobile homes and result in <br />4 site -built units on a single parcel containing ± 1 acre. The <br />resulting 4 units per acre "permanent" development -would exceed the <br />permitted density by a factor of 20. <br />Allowing such conversions is contrary to past county <br />interpretations of the non -conformities regulations. .Until now, <br />county policy toward mobile homes located outside of either mobile <br />parks or zoning districts allowing mobile homes has been to <br />eliminate all nonconformities created by such mobile homes when the <br />mobile home is removed from the property. In essence, county <br />policy has been to grandfather -in and' "vest" nonconformities <br />associated with a mobile home only for as long as that original <br />mobile home is in place and in use. The mobile home is treated as <br />"temporary" and does not permanently "vest" a site with a <br />comparable development potential. <br />Many of the county's nonconforming mobile homes are located on <br />single parcels of record and can be replaced by site -built homes. <br />However, in cases where a mobile home is one of at least two units <br />on a single parcel and itself contributes to a density <br />nonconformity, removal of the mobile home without replacement of <br />the unit has been the policy for reducing on-site density <br />nonconformities. Under such circumstances, the county's policy has <br />been that replacement of a mobile home with a site -built home would <br />not reduce the site's nonconformity and, therefore, would not be <br />TI -1 -owed. <br />This policy and nonconformities interpretation needs either to be <br />re -affirmed or changed by the Hoard. In essence, this becomes a <br />question of whether a non -conforming mobile home constitutes <br />grounds for permanently "vesting" a non -conforming density on a <br />given site. Past policy says no; the site non -conformity cannot <br />be reduced or.eliminated by the replacement of a non -conforming <br />mobile home. The appealed Planning and Zoning Commission decision <br />changes past policy and nonconformities interpretation, and would <br />give any property owner the ability to replace a non -conforming <br />mobile home with a site -built home. This, however, would have the <br />effect of making more permanent both a density non -conformity and <br />a too -many -units -on -a -single -parcel non -conformity. <br />Alternatives <br />Under the current land use designation (and even under the old RR <br />designation), there is no ability to split the subject property <br />into two legal, buildable parcels. Also, under the regulations of <br />section 904.08 (see attachment #5), the existing mobile home cannot <br />be replaced by a new mobile home. Thus, at this time there is no <br />legal ability either to create a separate parcel or to replace the <br />existing mobile home with a new mobile home. <br />At this time, the alternatives for the use of the site are as <br />follows: <br />(1) The applicant may continue the current use of the site under <br />the provisions of chapter 904. Eventually, the <br />nonconformities are to be lessened in degree or phased out. <br />52 <br />