Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05121992 - D.2 �• IL Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - `✓W�a FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON tea. Courty DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of Dean Lacey - Laceys Arabian Ranch; Supplemental Staff Report SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny appeal of Dean Lacey, upholding Administrative decision of the Community Development 'Department regarding permit fees and caretaker mobilehome size, Danville area. FISCAL IMPACT Loss of approximately $7,500 in various permit fees an&impact fees if Mr. Lacey's appeal is granted. s . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 28, 1992 the Board of' Supervisors considered the appeal of Mr. Lacey, who is requesting that: A. He be allowed to place a 2, 000 square foot mobilehomes as a caretaker mobilehome, on property which he leases at 4160 Camino Tassajara, and; B. That the County waive all pertinent fees related to the placement of this unit. The Board of Supervisors on April 28 continued this matter to May 5, 1992 and requested the Community Development Department to provide a supplemental staff report laying out the reasons for its recommendations. These are presented in relation to issues A 'and B, respectively, below. t . Issue A, a 2, 000 square foot mobilehome for a caretaker.' The regulation of caretaker mobilehomes is contained in Section 84- 68 .806 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Section 84- CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE'j> RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 12 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED , OTHER x See Addendum for Board action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT' COPY OF AN AYES:II , III , IV NOES: I , V ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT:-none ABSTAIN: none MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 12 , 1992 cc: Dean Lacey PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AN OUNTY MINISTRATOR Clerk of the Board Public Works Department BY 4L.4 , DEPUTY DMB/df ♦ •1 Page Two 68.806 (a) (3). specifies, in part, that "The mobilehome is not and will not be occupied by any individual possessing an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. " As the leaseholder, Mr. Lacey is therefore not a qualified applicant for a caretaker mobilehome. Furthermore, Section 84- 68.806 (a) (5) indicates that "The mobilehome shall be a single wide unit and contain at least 220 square feet but not more than 500 square feet of floor area. " The unit Mr. Lacey proposes at 2, 000 square feet greatly exceeds this limitation. Section 84-68. 1402 indicates that "Variance permits to modify the provisions contained in Sections 84-68. 1202 through 84-8. 1316 may be granted. . . " Since Section 84-68 . 806 is not within, the range of Sections for which variance permits may be granted, no such variance to the maximum size of the mobilehome unit may be considered under existing Code provisions. These provisions regulating caretaker mobilehomes are relatively recent additions to the Code. The intent of their adoption was to strictly regulate and limit the number of these units which are established throughout the County. The Code specifies that such units are not intended to provide for permanent housing facilities. At Section 84-68. 806 (b) the Code indicates "Not Permanent. Where an ongoing need for a full time caretaker exists, the shelter needs of the caretaker shall be satisfied by a residence on a permanent foundation. " Thus, the Code clearly intends to limit the proliferation of mobilehome units as caretaker housing. If the Board of Supervisors is inclined to entertain Mr. Lacey's request, the appropriate avenue would be to direct staff to prepare revisions to the code sections in order to accomplish what Mr. Lacey seeks. Because of the burden of enforcement implicit in this course of action, staff strongly recommends that the Board decline from such direction. With respect to Part B of Mr. Lacey's request, Staff does not find any authority in the applicable Code Provisions which would .allow the granting of a waiver to Park Dedication fees or road fees under the respective ordinances. It should be noted that fire and school fees are levied by districts independent of the authority of the Board of Supervisors; waivers for these fees could only be considered by the respective fire and school districts serving the site. In relation to the park dedication fees and road area of benefit fees, staff sees no reason why this individual should be exempted from fees paid by all similar property owners in connection with the establishment of a single family residence. If an exception is granted in this case, staff can see no reason why all other similarly situated property owners could not demand to be. entitled to identical treatment. Such an exception would therefore undermine the basis of these fee ordinances. In view of the foregoing, staff recommends that the appeal of Mr. Lacey be denied. e ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 MAY 12, 1992 On May 5, 1992, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the decision on the Administrative Appeal of Mr. Dean Lacey, Lacey's Arabian Ranch, from the decision of the Community Development Department on a request for an exception for permit fees in the Danville area. Supervisor Schroder commented on the inclination of the Board to see if something could be worked out with Mr. Lacey but that the Ordinance in effect is prohibitive as far as the size of the facility. Mr. Schroder commented that Victor Westman, County Counsel, was willing to draft an amendment to the Ordinance but that he needed specific parameters. Supervisor Schroder recommended that the Board request Mr. Westman to draft an amendment to the ordinance. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion. Supervisors Powers and Torlakson indicated they would not support the motion. On recommendation of Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal of Dean Lacey is DENIED without prejudice; and County Counsel is DIRECTED to prepare for Board consideration an amendment to the Ordinance Code addressing issues raised by this appeal.