4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 8, 6, F'IIU O"f I Staff's reasoning is sound. Staff's analysis recognizes that determining the degree of nonconformity goes beyond simple, quantitative analysis (two types of nonconformities are less than three). Rather, staff's analysis and reasoning recognize the qualitative differences between the existing nonconforming situation and the nonconforming situation that would result if the proposal is approved. Staff's decision is based upon an analysis that compares the "before" and "after" situations. 3. Staff did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare. The protection of surrounding properties from the permanent continuation of excessive densities and corresponding impacts is best served by staff's decision. Staff's decision denies a proposal that would essentially preclude compliance with adopted land use plan and zoning densities in the subject area. 4. Staff did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and LDRs of the county. As previously stated, staff's decision implements the stated purpose of the nonconformities chapter which is to "phase-out" nonconformities. Also, as previously stated, staff's decision allows for the future possibility of the subject site coming into compliance with the land use plan. The applicant's appeal letter cites seven comprehensive plan policies/objectives that are purported to support the appeal (see attachment #1). Most of the cited polices/objectives actually support staff's determination; the remainder are not relevant. The three cited land use objectives/policies are implemented via the land use plan. The land use plan accommodates and properly locates residential areas and appropriate densities. Upholding the land use plan, as staff's decision does, is paramount in implementing the cited policies/objectives and in protecting the property rights and values of county residents. The cited housing and economic development objective/policies support a decision (such as staff's) which would allow the "more affordable" mobile home to remain. Any housing code violations which could possibly exist at the mobile home could be cured by repair or removal of the mobile home.. The applicant's proposed replacement of the mobile is not necessary to correct any possible housing violations. In general, the land use plan implements and embodies most, if not all, of the comprehensive plan elements. As such, lack of conformity with the land use plan constitutes a high degree of nonconformity with the comprehensive plan. Such a land use plan -related nonconformity should not be made permanent by the construction of a second site -built structure on the subject parcel. 54