PLA-V25-021 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

appropriate in zones by limiting the expansion of nonconforming uses which predate current zoning and are incongruent with the uses around them. Exceptions to this limit on expansion may be granted only under the type of extreme situations that would meet the criteria in the above referenced sections of Marion County Code. In this specific situation, the septic system relied upon by 43 homes in the Olds Mobile Park is failing. Constructing the replacement septic system within the existing 4.16-acres would require immediate removal of approximately 20 occupied homes, and a permanent 50% reduction in capacity of the park. The property owners propose this property line adjustment and variance for expansion of a nonconforming use in order to maintain their current capacity. This is exactly the type of situation the provision for expansion of nonconforming uses was intended for. The criterion is met. 8. In order to obtain a variance for expansion of a nonconforming use, the proposal must make findings to reflect the considerations found in Section 17.114.150 of the Marion County Rural Zone Code (MCC). A nonconforming use may be enlarged, expanded, or extended wholly on the same lot or parcel or on an adjacent lot or parcel consistent with the criteria below when such enlargement, expansion or extension is approved by the planning commission, hearings officer, or planning director through the variance proceedings set forth in Chapter 17.122 MCC. Any approval by the planning commission, hearings officer, or planning director of an application for the enlargement, expansion or extension of a nonconforming use shall be allowed only after findings are made which reflect the following considerations: A. The intent and purpose of the zoning or zone change which caused the subject use to become nonconforming; The zoning on this parcel was instituted in response to SB100 and subsequent statewide land use planning regulations in the 1970s. The intent of the EFU zone is to promote commercial agricultural activity. The mobile home park was established in the 1960s, sometime after being purchased by the Olds family in 1961. A land use case from 1987 (V87-005) references establishment of the park “25 years ago,” indicating 1962. In an aerial images of the area from February of 1966 there are what appear to be 11 mobile homes on the parcel. In a deed from 1967 (Volume 638 Page 649) the property is transferred with three mobile homes described as included with the sale. The record shows that the Olds Mobile Park was established prior to Exclusive Farm Use zoning that was intended to support commercial agriculture and limit non-compatible uses. B. Adverse impact of the expansion of the nonconforming use on the interests sought to be protected by the zone in which the subject property is located; The expansion of the nonconforming use will involve removing approximately 1.86-acres from farm use in order to site the drainfield and reserve the drainfield repair area. The current drainfield is located on the east adjacent parcel, where hazelnut trees have been planted on top of it. While any removal of land devoted to farming is an adverse impact, the proposal is to expand onto a section of an already small farm which is engaged in nursery crop production which is appropriate for smaller farm parcels. C. The availability, including economic factors, of other property where the subject use would be a conforming and permitted use; The expansion is strictly for the septic system serving the Olds Mobile Home Park. The septic system is required directly adjacent to the existing park, and there are no other adjacent lands where this use would be conforming or permitted. There are other properties in the county where a mobile home park could be sited, but this approval is only for the septic system. D. The availability of other appropriate remedies; The only other feasible remedy would be to create space on the mobile home park parcel for the drainfield. Almost half the homes in the park would need to be removed to accomplish this. There is no location readily available to relocate those homes. This remedy is not appropriate given the solution offered by the proposed property line adjustment and variance for expansion of the nonconforming use. E. The presence of unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be relieved only by approving the request;