HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200400003 Staff Report 2004-06-01STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd
PUBLIC HEARING: June 1, 2004
STAFF REPORT: AP 2004-003
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Ellis A. & Irene S. Sprouse (Owner) Beverly S.
Ergenbright (Appellant)
The applicant appeals the Zoning Administrator's determination in accordance with
Section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Description of Property:
Tax Map 57, parcel 8 is located on Three Notched Road approximately one mile west of
the intersection with Route 250. The parcel contains 47.8 acres and is zoned Rural Areas,
RA and Entrance Corridor, EC. The property is improved by 43 manufactured homes
known as Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park and one additional dwelling. For tax purposes,
8 acres are designated as the manufactured home park.
Determination: The appellant has inquired if a manufactured home, to be used as a
residential dwelling, may be located on an existing pad on the parcel. On March 12, 2004
the Zoning Administrator determined that an additional dwelling on the parcel would be
an expansion of a nonconforming use and was therefore prohibited. [Attachment A]
Background: The appellant has indicated that the development of the Beaver Hill
Mobile Home Park began in 1965. Real estate records note that 43 manufactured homes
were located on the parcel in 1980. The appellant has stated that in 1981 or 1982 a
manufactured home was placed on a pad designated as Lot 44. This manufactured home
was never used as a dwelling. It was only used for storage. In December of 2003, this
manufactured home was removed from the property.
The park has maintained a reputation for being neat and well managed. It contributes to
the County's commitment to affordable housing as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and
the Strategic Plan.
The Nonconforming Status of the Uses on the Parcel:
On 12/9/1980, the parcel contained a legal mobile home park comprised of 43
manufactured homes and one additional legal dwelling.
On December 10, 1980, the current zoning ordinance was adopted. All uses that had
been legal prior to that date but were not permitted by the new ordinance became
nonconforming. As a result of the new ordinance, the mobile home park became a
nonconforming use and each dwelling on the parcel became a nonconforming use.
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
AP-2004-003 2 June 1, 2004
In 1981 or 1982, a manufactured home was placed on a pad identified as Lot 44. The
structure was permitted to be used as a storage building that was accessory to the
nonconforming mobile home park use. The structure that was on Lot 44 was never a legal
dwelling and it was never a nonconforming dwelling.
Grounds for Zoning Administrator's Determination:
The legal basis for the analysis of nonconformities is summarized in Chapter 18 in the
Land Use Law Handbook prepared by the County Attorney's Office in 2001. A copy is
attached for reference. [Attachment B]. Section 6 of the Ordinance is also included for
reference. [Attachment C]
The Zoning Administrator's determination can be summarized as follows. The
nonconformity of this parcel is two -pronged: (1) The mobile home park is a
nonconforming use, and (2) the 43 manufactured homes plus the one single family
dwelling on the parcel are nonconforming to density and area and bulk regulations. The
addition of another dwelling on the parcel is not permitted because the parcel would
become more nonconforming with respect to the mobile home park use as well as the
density and area and bulk regulations. Furthermore, the manufactured home on Lot 44
was only used as a storage building and was placed on the property after the adoption of
the ordinance. Therefore, there is no vested right or nonconforming status attached to the
storage building that would support its conversion to a dwelling. No development rights
remain with the parcel to support the additional dwelling. The reasoning for this
determination is further developed below.
1. The placement of an additional manufactured home on the parcel is not permitted
because it is an expansion of a nonconforming use: mobile home park.
A mobile home park is not a permitted use in the RA zoning district, either by right or by
special permit. The existing mobile home park on the parcel is a nonconforming because
it was on the parcel prior to December 10, 1980.
Section 6.2.B addresses nonconforming uses and is provided here for reference.
"B. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use shall
not be enlarged or extended such that the character of the use existing on the
effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the use
is located is changed. The zoning administrator's determination of whether the
character of a nonconforming use has changed shall be based on the magnitude
of the change in the size and scope of the use and the effects these changes have
upon the purposes of this chapter. In evaluating the change in the size and scope
of the use, an increase in the volume or intensity of the use and any alteration or
variation in the use, such as the provision of additional goods or services, shall be
considered. A mere increase in the volume, intensity or frequency of the use that
is trivial, insubstantial or reasonably customary or incidental, and that is not
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
AP-2004-003
June 1, 2004
accompanied by an alteration or variation in the use, shall not be deemed to be
an enlargement or extension of the use. "
It is staff opinion that adding a dwelling unit to the mobile home park is prohibited by
this provision. Such an addition would indeed be an expansion of the nonconforming use
based on the plain meaning of the words enlarged or extended. Clearly, the size of a
manufactured home park is first measured by its number of dwellings. Clearly, an
increase in the number of dwellings results in an increase in demand for services.
It is staff opinion that an increase in the area that is occupied by the manufactured homes
would not be deemed to be an extension of the nonconforming use.
2. The addition of a dwelling is not permitted because it would increase the parcel's
nonconformity with respect to development rights and the area and bulk regulations
of the Rural Areas district.
This 47.387 acre parcel has a single family detached dwelling and 43 manufactured
homes for a total 44 dwellings. The Rural Areas zoning limits the parcel to a maximum
of 6 dwelling units based on 5 development right lots containing a minimum of 2 acres
and 1 additional parcel containing a minimum of 21 acres. Furthermore, the ordinance
limits a parcel to a maximum of five dwelling units. Therefore, each of the 44 existing
dwellings may remain as a legal, nonconforming use. An additional dwelling on the
parcel would result in its being more nonconforming to these regulations.
3. The manufactured home that was placed on Lot 44 after the date of the adoption
of the ordinance was never a nonconforming dwelling.
The manufactured home on Parcel 44 was never anything but a storage building. It did
not enjoy the status of a nonconforming dwelling. It was a storage structure that was
allowed as an accessory use to the primary, nonconforming mobile home park use. Its use
as a dwelling would have been a violation of the zoning ordinance because the parcel had
exhausted all of its development rights. That remains the case today. The parcel has no
remaining development rights to allow the placement of an additional dwelling.
4. Section 6.3.1) is not relevant because the manufactured home that was used as a
storage building on Lot 44 was not a nonconforming dwelling.
Section 6.3.1), which is provided below for reference, addresses the replacement of
nonconforming manufactured homes. This provision does not support the appellants'
position because the manufactured home that was used as a storage building on Lot 44
was never a nonconforming dwelling. This provision can not operate to convert a
manufactured home that was only used as a storage structure into a dwelling without a
development right.
6.3.D Replacement of a nonconforming manufactured home. A nonconforming
manufactured home may be replaced with another manufactured home, provided
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
AP-2004-003 4 June 1, 2004
it is labeled in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Manufactured
Home Safety Regulations, and is installed in accordance with the current edition
of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Section 4.1.6 of this chapter
shall apply to the replacement of the manufactured home.
5. Virginia Code Section 15-2.2307, Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming
uses, does not create a vested right to convert a manufactured home that was used
only as a storage into a dwelling.
In 2002, Section 15-2.2307 of the Code was amended to include this provision:
[Attachment D]
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the land owner or the home
owner from removing a valid nonconforming manufactured home from a mobile
or manufactured home park and replacing that home with another comparable
manufactured home that meets the current HUD manufactured housing code. In
such a mobile or manufactured home park, a single -section home may replace a
single section home and a multi -section home may replace a multi -section home.
The owner of a valid nonconforming mobile or manufactured home not located in
a mobile or manufactured home park may replace that home with a newer
manufactured home, either single- or multi -section that meets the current HUD
manufactured housing code. Any such replacement home shall retain the valid
non -conforming status of the prior home. "
This section clearly permits the replacement of a manufactured home with a
manufactured home. However, a manufactured home used as a storage building does not
create a vested right to replace it with a manufactured home to be used as a dwelling.
Based on the last sentence, the replacement would retain the valid nonconforming status
of the prior home. The manufactured home on Lot 44 was not a valid dwelling, it was a
storage building. It had no nonconforming status as a dwelling.
This is supported by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in its ruling in Joyce S. Fritts, et al.
v. Carolinas Cement. In that 2001 case, the Court agreed with the trial judge who found
that silos met the definition of warehouses. The Court noted that, "generally, the function
rather than the form of a structure is relevant to defining the use under the zoning
ordinance." The manufactured home on Lot 44 had the form of a dwelling but the
function of a storage building. [Attachment E]
The Appellant's Justification for Appeal:
The appellants' justification is summarized below. Each point is followed by a staff
response. [Attachment F] Section 6.2.A.2 is provided here for reference:
Sec. 6.2 Nonconforming uses.
A nonconforming use may continue, subject to the provisions, conditions and
prohibitions set forth herein.
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
AP-2004-003 5 June 1, 2004
A. Change, enlargement or extension of area used by a nonconforming use. The
area occupied or used by a nonconforming use shall not be:
2. Occupation or use of additional structure. Changed, enlarged or extended to
occupy a structure not used for the nonconforming use on the effective date of the
zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the use is located; or
1. "Section 6.2.A.2 regulates the change, enlargement or extension of areas occupied by
a nonconforming use. We feel that this is not an expansion of the area occupied by a
nonconforming use. Maps and tax records will show this unit has been on the 8.0
acres which are designated as a manufactured home park. The space in question is a
part of the eight acres."
Staff Response: Staff agrees that this request would not result in an expansion of the area
of the manufactured home park. Section 6.2.13, included above, can support a minor
expansion of area of a nonconforming use.
2. "Section 6.2.A.2 specifically prohibits the occupation or use of an additional structure
for such an expansion. No additional structure is being requested for expansion. The
home has been on the 8.0 acres for 21 years. The replacement unit is in the guidelines
of the Virginia Code 15.2-2307."
"This is not an increase in units nor enlargement of area. The prior home was set up
as a dwelling with all the amenities/ utilities/ address of a home. It contained the
overflow of furniture from other homes. It was not inhabited by any occupants."
Staff Response: Staff disagrees that this request is permitted under the provisions of
6.2.A.2 of the zoning ordinance. We acknowledge that the number of manufactured
homes on the property would not increase above the number of structures that were there
up to December 2003. However, the replacement of a manufactured home that was used
as an accessory storage building with a new manufactured home to be used as a dwelling
is indeed an expansion of a nonconforming use. As discussed above, this would be an
expansion of the nonconforming mobile home park use and an expansion of the
nonconforming density that exists on the parcel. This section could only support the
appellants' position if the manufactured storage building had been established as a legal
dwelling prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Again, it was placed on the parcel after
December 10, 1980 and was never used as a dwelling.
3. "Virginia Code Section 15-2.2307 permits the replacement of a manufactured home
that does not conform with HUD regulations with a new manufactured home."
Staff Response: As discussed previously under the Zoning Administrator's grounds, this
section of the Code does not establish a vested right to convert a manufactured home that
was used as a storage building into a dwelling.
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
AP-2004-003 6 June 1, 2004
Summary: Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-2.2307 of the Code of
Virginia both permit the Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park to continue to operate as a
nonconforming use. These two codes allow the 43 manufactured homes and the single
family detached dwelling to continue to exist as nonconforming uses. The manufactured
storage building was never a legal dwelling and has no status as a nonconforming
dwelling. Therefore, the placement of an additional manufactured home on the property
is not permitted because it would be more nonconforming with respect to the mobile
home park use and the density. The placement of an additional dwelling on the parcel
would violate the current area and bulk regulations of the RA district. The BZA is
requested to affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination that an additional
manufactured home shall not be placed on Tax Map 57, Parcel 8.
Attachments
A- Zoning Administrator's determination
B- Chapter 18 Land Use Law Handbook
C- Zoning Ordinance Section 6
D- Virginia Code Section 15.2-2307
E- Joyce S. Fritts, et al. v. Carolinas Cement Company
F- Appellants' Justification
IADEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Staff Reports\2004 staff reports\AP-2004-003
Beaver Hill.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (434) 972-4126 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012
March 12, 2004
Beverly Ergenbright
P.O. Box 192
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: Beaver Hill Mobiie riome Court
Tax Map 57, Parcel 8
Dear Ms. Ergenbright:
You have asked if a mobile home can be located on Lot 44 in the Beaver Hill Mobile Home
Court. I understand from our phone conversation that until recently a manufactured home had
been located on this lot for more than ten years. It had always been used for storage and had
never been occupied as a dwelling.
Mobile home parks are not permitted in the RA district by right or by special use permit.
However, the park is allowed to continue under the nonconforming provisions of Section 6.2 of
the zoning ordinance. Section 6.2.A regulates the change, enlargement or extension of areas
occupied by a nonconforming use. Section 6.2.A.2 specifically prohibits the occupation or use of
an additional structure for such an expansion. It is determined that the addition of another
manufactured home to be used as a dwelling on the property is prohibited because it would be an
expansion of a nonconforming use.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the
date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of
Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable.
An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning
Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application
must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination
was given is the same as the date of this letter.
Please contact me if you have questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
lADEMBCZS\Determination General\Beaver Hill MHP.doc
Beverly Ergenbright
March 12, 2004
Page 2
Copy: Ellis A. and Irene S. Sprouse
4774 Three Notched Road
Crozet, VA 22932
Reading File 57-8
lADEMB CZS\Determi nation General\Beaver Hill MHP.doc