4/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff failed to evaluate the proposal with "common sense" with respect to the comprehensive plan and the.LDRs. The central question raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding and now by staff's appeal is an interpretation of how the LDRs treat the subject proposal. Both sides have presented logical, "common sense" reasoning to support their respective sides. The use of "common sense" is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the county should continue to deny the replacement of non -conforming mobile homes with site -built homes when a density non -conformity and other non -conformities would be made more permanent by such action. Staff's decision is logical and merely continues previous county policy and interpretation of the non -conformities regulations. SUMMARY In staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal would not result in a lessening of the degree of the nonconformities on site. Rather, the proposal would increase the degree of nonconformity by making permanent a land use plan density nonconformity and a two units on a single parcel non -conformity. By way of the applicant's reasoning (and by way of a precedent if the Planning and zoning Commission's decision is allowed to stand), mobile homes in an existing, excessively dense, nonconforming mobile home park could be replaced by site -built units, resulting in a permanent multi- family project having an excessive density. Such reasoning would simply allow the permanent replacement of a "temporary" housing type in a manner which would reinforce and make permanent a density and other types of nonconformities. Such reasoning is not consistent with the intent and reasonable interpretation of the provision(s) of Chapter 904. Because the applicant's proposal would not lessen the degree of nonconformity, the proposal cannot be allowed under the provisions of section 904.05. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision should be overturned, and staff's decision should be upheld. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. affirm that staff evaluated the subject appeal pursuant to the four criteria cited in section 902.07(4) of the LDRs; and 2. find that staff did not fail to act. appropriately in relation to -any of the four areas; and 3. overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and deny the applicant's appeal of staff's decision; and 4. uphold staff Is- that the applicant's proposal would result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity of the subject property. 55 APP 2 8 1992 0 o K � J