Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200000003 Action Letter 2000-07-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-4012 July 6, 2000 Steven O. Wells 2137 Thomas Jefferson Parkway Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Appeal Application, AP-2000-003 Tax Map 93, Parcel 32 Dear Mr. Wells: The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals heard your appeal request, AP-2000-3, at their regular public hearing on July 5, 2000. The Board unanimously (5:0) ruled to overturn the Zoning Administrator's determination that the mobile home park cannot be expanded because it is a nonconforming use. The Board ruled that the twelve (12) space mobile home park is nonconforming and that the appellant can replace the three mobile homes that were vacated more than two (2) years ago. Your building permit applications will be reactivated and processed for issuance. A refund will be processed and forwarded to you for the appeal application fee of $95 under separate cover. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincere y god Amelia G. McCulley, A.LC.p Zoning Administrator Cc: Goldene R. Wells AP-2000-03 APPROVAL LETTER FINAL.DOC STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: July 5, 2000 STAFF REPORT AP 2000-03 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Goldene R. Wells (owner) / Steven O. Wells (appellant) The applicants appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination in accordance with Section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. It is important to focus on the zonin approval for the Wells Mobile Home Park. This is not a question of whether mobile homes or mobile home parks should or should not be permitted uses. Also not relevant to the zoning question are how well this Park is managed or what purposes this Park serves. Please be advised that the zoning regulations relating to Nonconformities, Section 6, was comprehensively amended by the Board of Supervisors on June 14, 2000. While both the prior and the current ordinance will be attached and discussed, the current amended ordinance applies. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: The property is located at 2137 Thomas Jefferson Parkway on Wells Court. It is on the north side of Route 53 about 0.6 mile northwest of the intersection with Route 729. Tax Map 93, Parcel 32. Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. It is comprised of 23.38 acres. The property is improved with 9 mobile homes and utility connections for a total of 12 mobile homes. BACKGROUND OF APPEAL: The Wells applied for permits to locate 3 mobile homes on their property. It was proposed that they would be located on the 3 existing unoccupied spaces which had not been used in more than two (2) years. After some staff discussion, including consultation with the County Attorney's office, these permits were denied due to the fact that so much time had passed that they had abandoned their nonconforming status and must comply with the current zoning district regulations. This zoning district (Rural Areas) does not permit mobile home parks. Staff has searched for evidence of permanent zoning approval for all 12 mobile homes, but has found none. If the prior zoning approval existed, the park would not be considered a nonconforming use but would be a vested right. • 2 July 5, 2000 BZA AP 2000-003 DETERMINATION: See the determination letter dated April 6, 2000 for the official determination. (ATTACHMENT A) 1. The mobile home park is a nonconforming use, subject to Section 6.0, Nonconformities (ATTACHMENT B for the ordinance prior to June 14, 2000 and ATTACHMENT C for the current ordinance) 2. Each mobile home in a park is a nonconforming use. The size or scale of the nonconforming use is based on the number of mobile homes in the park. 3. When the three (3) mobile homes were removed for a period of more than two (2) years, their nonconforming use was abandoned. The mobile home park changed to a more restricted nonconforming use (from 12 mobile homes to 9 mobile homes). 4. Any addition of mobile homes to the nonconforming park must comply with the current regulations. The current regulations do not permit this use in this zoning district. GROUNDS FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION: A mobile home park is not currently a permitted use in this zoning district. Mobile homes on individual lots are allowed in the Rural Areas district; however, mobile home parks (3 or more rental lots) are not permitted. The Wells Mobile Home Park is a nonconforming use because it lawfully predates the current zoning regulations. According to the owner, it has been in operation since 1963, prior to the first zoning in Albemarle in 1968, readopted in 1969. The owner claims to have received zoning approval for the park expansion in the mid- 1960s. Mr. Steven Wells states that the Park was expanded to provide affordable housing options for construction workers for Interstate 64. Mr. Wells claims to have obtained zoning approval for the Park, prior to the adoption of zoning in 1968. At that time, County approval for a park included paying a license fee per mobile home and receiving approval from the Health Department. This was a County Code requirement which holds no zoning authority. With the adoption of zoning, a mobile home park required a special permit from the Board of Supervisors. The zoning ordinance did provide for a temporary mobile home park to provide lodging for workers involved in major construction projects. This was a temporary approval which also necessitated a special permit. The applicant did apply for a special permit to expand the Wells Mobile Home Park, however there is no evidence that it was approved. The file mentions an expansion request with conflicting numbers: one is for 30 mobile homes and the other for 12 mobile homes. Staff has researched at least 11 years of minutes of the Board of Supervisors (1962-1973). The only findings were that the Planning Commission recommended denial and the Board deferred the special permit. / i► 3 July 5, 2000 BZA AP 2000-003 • A history of the applicable regulations and permit applications is as follows: • County Code provision for Trailers and Trailer Courts was adopted January 1, 1960. This ordinance included design and inspection requirements. It was amended on October 21, 1965. This Trailer ordinance required the payment of a license fee to the County Finance Department. • 1963 — Wells Mobile Home Park began with five (5) lots; • Golden R. Wells made application for a conditional use permit (#004) to expand the Park. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request on July 1, 1968 (ATTACHMENT D). The Board of Supervisors indefinitely deferred the request at their meeting on July 18, 1968 (ATTACHMENT E). • Staff has researched Board of Supervisors' minutes from 1962 until 1973 and has found no further discussion of the conditional use permit. • The applicant claims that the Park was expanded to 12 units prior to 1968 in order to provide housing for construction workers. The applicant claims that this approval was granted by the Board of Supervisors. These three (3) mobile home spaces of the twelve (12) were vacated more than two (2) years ago. When the mobile homes were removed from these spaces, they were not replaced. The Park continued for more than two (2) years with only nine (9) mobile home spaces filled. • On February 29, 2000, Mr. Wells applied for building permits for the three (3) mobile homes to fill the vacated spaces. At some point, the Wells placed mobile homes on the property in two (2) of those spaces. Some of the relevant provisions of both the prior and the current nonconforming zoning regulations follow: [Current ordinance post June 14, 2000] Section 6.2 Nonconforming uses A. Change enlargement or extension ofarea 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 ... 4. Relocation to previously unoccupied or unused structure. Moved, in whole or in part, to another structure unoccupied or unused by the nonconforming use on the effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the use is located. July 5, 2000 BZA AP 2000-003 D. Chan e to more restricted nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is changed to a more restricted nonconforming use, the original nonconforming use shall be deemed to be abandoned and the use shall not thereafter be changed back to the original nonconforming use. For purposes of this subsection, a more restricted nonconforming use is a use whose character is either less nonconforming than the original nonconforming use, or that occupies less area of the lot or the structure or structures in which it is located. G. Discontinuance of nonconforming use. A nonconforming use and all uses accessory thereto shall be discontinued, and any use of the structure or lot shall thereafter comply with the regulations set forth in this chapter applicable to the district in which the use is located, if the nonconforming use is discontinued for more than two (2) years, regardless of whether the use was continuous or seasonal... [Ordinance prior to June 14, 2000] When a use, activity or structure is discontinued for more than two years, it is considered abandoned and thereafter must conform (Section 6.1.3). When a use, activity or structure is changed to a conforming or a more restricted nonconforming use, activity or structure, the original use shall be deemed abandoned (Section 6.1.4). APPELLANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR APPEAL: With the projected construction of Interstate 64, the Park was expanded to twelve (12) lots. The Board approved fourteen (14) lots at that time. This expansion was to help provide affordable housing options for the numerous construction workers and their families. The Park has been in continuous operation since its inception in 1963. Water, sewage and electrical services are kept up-to-date. The facilities on the lots in question have been in continuous use. Water and sewage flow through the lines. The lots have not been abandoned. Notification of zoning changes regarding mobile home lots or real estate in general has not been received in any form or manner. Due to the fact that there are few Mobile Home Parks in the County of Albemarle notification of changes should be in the form of letters / memos to the owners. Two mobile homes are in place and ready for hook-up the services. To date, costs exceed $15,000. / 5 July 5, 2000 BZA AP 2000-003 We request to continue to operate all twelve (12) mobile home lots located in Wells Court. If this reasonable request is not approved there will be an undue hardship placed on a family who have been tax paying residents of Albemarle County since the 1940s. STAFF RESPONSE: Absent evidence of zoning approval for the Park, this is a nonconforming use. It is possible that the approval the applicant recalls predates zoning and is approval of permits from the Finance Department for compliance with the Trailer Ordinance. This type of licensure approval does not constitute zoning approval and authority for the use. Therefore, this use is entitled to and subject to the nonconformity regulations. As a nonconforming use, the Park may continue at the present size, provided it does not cease operation for over two (2) years. However, nowhere in the nonconforming regulations is provision for an expansion of a nonconforming use. (There are some exceptions such as for expanding an existing nonconforming structure to establish sanitary provisions, handicap facilities and the like.) The basic concept is that over time, nonconforming uses either cease or obtain the necessary approvals, in order to become uses which comply with the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Part of this evolution towards compliance includes diminishing the size or amount of a nonconformity. This intent is captured in the statement of purpose for the recently approved zoning text amendment for Nonconformities. It states in part, "Nonconforming uses, structures and lots are declared to be incompatible with the zoning districts in which they are located and, therefore, are authorized to continue only under the circumstances provided herein until they are discontinued, removed, changed or action is taken to conform to the zoning regulations ... " It would not follow good planning principles to allow a nonconforming use to expand at any given time, to any larger size that existed prior to zoning. What if a mobile home park consisted of as many as 100 units prior to zoning and as few as 20 units after zoning? Would an expansion be permitted to allow 100 units again? There needs to be an appropriate evolution of uses and structures until the point at which they do comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations themselves. The Board is advised to again focus on the question of the interpretation of the zoning regulations as they apply to this set of facts. It is unfortunate, although irrelevant, that the mobile homes have been purchased and moved at expense to the owner. It is also not relevant whether it is good for this use or this Park to be expanded. The zoning text amendment approved on June 14' relating to the Section 6.0 Nonconformities language will further clarify this situation for future similar cases. The appellant has been advised of his options. Because a mobile home park is not a permitted use in this zoning district, there is no zoning permit to allow an expansion in the Rural Areas district. The appellant is fortunate to own numerous neighboring properties on which additional individual mobile homes could be placed. We would be glad to work with him on this process.