9/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In January 1991, Mr. Jordan rented the residence with attached garage at 6360 105 Place to a man who opened a commercial automotive garage. This was an illegal non -conformity which went before the Code Enforcement Board in 1991, Case #91-217. Mr. Jordan's attorney represented to the Board that the property had been used continuously over many years as a commercial auto garage. This was not true. No testimony was offered. The Board based their decision on false statemtns made to them and misrepresentations made to them. Because the Board's action was to determine the allowed use of the property, We, as adjacent property owners should have been notified of this action. We were not. Because the Board action resulted in a change of use, with increased intensity, we should have been notified of this decision. We were not. I learned of this action, which resulted in the false grandfathering of the property, from Community Development Director, Bob Keating 5 1/2 years after the fact! According to the minutes of this case, the Board did allow that if new evidence were obtained a new case could be initiated. I believe the Board should have the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding the use of this property based on the truth, not lies. In 1988 a mobile home was removed from 6362 105 Place, east of the residence with attached garage. The mobile home was a non -conforming use on land zoned RM -6, and as such cannot be replaced. Mr. Jordan replaced the mobile home in violation of County Codes in April of 1991. It was replaced with a mobile home which was originally removed from this site in 1979. It was proposed to Community Director Bob Keating and County Planner Roland DeBlois, that this mobile home had at one time been a part of the adjacent mobile home park, Dunn Runnin, the property which I own. And, in fact, non -conforming mobile homes may be replaced IF located in a legal non -conforming mobile home park, HOWEVER they must be replaced within ONE YEAR, or all non -conformities (the mobile home) shall be considered terminated and shall not there after be re-established (c.c.904-08(1)). I purchased Dunn Runnin Mobile Home Park in 1986. The mobile home and site at 6362 105 Place were NOT a part of my legal non -conforming Mobile Home Park. This fact prohibits the replacement of a mobile home at 6362 105 Place. If the mobile home at 6362 105 Place HAD been a part of my park, it would have to have been replaced within ONE YEAR. In fact, it was replaced after a FOUR YEAR vacancy. This is not allowed per County Code 904.08 (1). The allowance of this illegal non -conforming mobile home has no county code to support its use, yet Mr. Keating and Mr. DeBlois have determined an unknown "gray area" exists to allow this exception to County Code. County Code 904.05 (1) Expansion, increase or change of non -conformities is prohibited unless the change results in a lessening of the degree of non -conformity. In April 1991 this 200'x121' lot supported one legal non -conforming mobile home, a residential structure, and one falsely grandfathered non -conforming commercial automotive garage. The addition of one more non -conforming use on the 2001x121' lot is not a lessening in the degree of non -conformity, but an INCREASE, which is in violation of the County Code. County Staff has ignored the Code to allow Mr. Jordan the privilege of a non -conforming mobile home where one cannot be replaced. Mr. Jordan benefits financially from this decision as the mobile home is income property. A second time in 1991 Mr. Jordan was allowed to replace a non -conforming mobile home with another non -conforming mobile home on 105 Place. This parcel was NEVER a part of ANY mobile home park. The County Code does NOT allow this. Another resident and property owner of 105 Place asked County Staff to be allowed the same privilege, to replace a non -conforming mobile home, but they were refused this privilege. Again Mr. Jordan benefited financially by the code exception and privilege afforded only to him, when he sold the property at a substantial profit. Why have these exceptions and special privileges been afforded to Mr. Jordan by Mr. Keating and Mr. DeBlois, when the exceptions and special privileges are not afforded to all citizens of our county? Spring of 1996 we complained to Code Enforcement regarding a U -Haul business which was operating on a small parcel of 105 Place, owned by Mr. Jordan. This lot is situated between the falsely grandfathered commercial auto 33 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997