Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 of 7 <br />Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />Staff Report of 9/23/93 <br /># A93-001 <br /> <br />mobile home, manufactured prior to 1976, may, on the same <br />lot, be replaced by a manufactured home, constructed <br />subsequent to 1976. Mobile homes and manufactured homes <br />are substantially the same type of dwelling. The difference in <br />designation is largely based on the date of manufacture. <br /> <br />The prospective buyer was told that due to the fact that the <br />original mobile home had previously been removed from the <br />property, state law was not applicable. Based on this <br />determination, a manufactured home could not be placed on <br />the property. <br /> <br />The buyer subsequently provided the City with copies of titles <br />for two (2) homes. One for his manufactured home, the other <br />for a pre-1976 mobile home titled to Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, the <br />applicants. The buyer was again informed that due to the fact <br />that the original mobile home had been previously removed <br />from the property, a manufactured home could not be placed <br />on the property. It was at this point that Mrs. Hicks, the <br />applicant, contacted the City. <br /> <br />Mrs. Hicks was informed that two (2) issues are involved. The <br />first issue, which is the only one being considered in this case, <br />is abandonment of the nonconforming use. It is the City's <br />determination that given the time that has passed since the <br />mobile home was removed, the nonconforming use is <br />abandoned and cannot be resumed. <br /> <br />The second issue is in regards to state law. In order for this <br />law to apply, a request for replacement must be initiated while <br />the original home is still in place on the property in question. <br />Again, since the original home was previously removed, this law <br />is not applicable. <br /> <br />Mrs. Hicks, at this point, expressed her desire to appeal the <br />City's determination. In addition to the zoning issue, a question <br />regarding state law is involved, the matter was referred to the <br />City Attorney's office for review. In a verbal determination, <br />Mr. Armstrong, the Assistant City Attorney indicated the <br />following: <br />