04-24-1997 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing

Browse Search

• Board of Adjustment Mtg. 9-25-97 A97-003 -Brenda Rogers Page 2 of 5 • Following the purchase of the property, the applicant states she contacted City Hall and was told she could not replace the mobile home unless it was within a licensed mobile home park. The applicant contends that based on this information and the poor condition of the mobile home, she arranged for the home to be removed from the property. The issue being considered in this case, is abandonment of a nonconforming use. It is the City's determination that given the time that has passed since the mobile home was removed in May, 1996 and the subsequent submittal of an application for replacement of the home on August 25, 1997, the nonconforming use is abandoned and cannot be returned. In talking with Ms. Rogers, she referenced a 1996 conversation with an earlier Building Official, but did not have a date or name. The applicant's subsequent 1997 conversations with staff included Mr. Art Flores, Mrs. Debbie Wilmore and Mr. Guy Rankin. Each staff member explained that the applicant's attempt to persuade the staff of "the applicability of the State Law replacement option" is not valid since the mobile home was not currently on site. There has not been a mobile home on this lot since May, 1996. Following her conversation with Mr. Rankin, the applicant was referred to the City Attorney's office for discussion. In a verbal opinion, Mr. Armstrong, the Assistant City Attorney indicated the following to Mr. Rankin: ^ Based on available facts and information, staffs assessments and determinations are correct. ^ The issue of abandonment of a nonconforming use is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. An appeal regarding this issue may be made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ^ The jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment extends only to zoning matters. The Board is only empowered to consider any determinations or interpretations regarding state law to the same extent that the Building Official is empowered to determine. ^ Mr. Armstrong says that the factual assessments of staff and application by staff of the zoning ordinance to staff s factual assessments are entitled to great weight. The Zoning Board of Adjustment should not substitute its factual determination for those of staff, unless the Board believes that, based upon evidence brought out at the hearing, the fact assessments of staff could not have been concluded by a reasonable individual. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that: (a) physical abandonment, and (b) intent to abandon the use, did not occur with the removal of the home.