| Author | Post |
|---|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 27th, 2007 12:16 pm |
|
| What do you think about non-conforming uses in the town, such as the auto salvage yard on Highway 150? Should the town do anything and if so, what?
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 04:16 pm |
|
| I think this is something all three towns face. Is there some way they could grandfather these in, as I guess they have done, but then not allow them to be passed on to some outside interest or to be continued as something else? Meaning, could they be allowed as long as they remain what they are, but would have to be approved again if their identity changed, unless that change would be in compliance with the current zoning for that area?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
mstone
Member
| Joined: | Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oak Ridge, USA |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 02:40 am |
|
As noted in the NWO article, the town could amotize non-conforming properties (give them a fixed time - say 5 years - to comply or shut down). I personally don't like that idea. If a business has been there for over 20 years, anyone moving into the area has to accept what's there. Just because the community has changed from rural/farming/out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere to a high-priced residential area doesn't mean long-term residents should have to change to conform to new ideas about the community.
Think of it like this... a mobile home is placed on a piece of property in 1970 that includes a chicken farm. Everything has the approval of the folks in the area, and the business does OK. Now it's 2007, and that same trailer is still there along with the chickens. Time has taken a toll, but the trailer is still in use as a residence just like it has been for the past 37 years. Then some developer purchases the property next door and puts in half-million dollar homes. The new neighbors don't want to look at what they perceive to be an eye-sore, so they complain to the town to get rid of the trailer and chickens. The trailer and the business didn't change - it's the town and the new residence that have changed.
Not exactly fair to the long-term property owner. Just like any purchase - let the buyer beware (and do their homework before they buy property beside a business).
|
Waytago
Member
| Joined: | Jan 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 175 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 11:59 pm |
|
| mstone, very eloquent, and very well stated. Agree completely.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 30th, 2007 12:17 pm |
|
mstone wrote: As noted in the NWO article, the town could amotize non-conforming properties (give them a fixed time - say 5 years - to comply or shut down). I personally don't like that idea. If a business has been there for over 20 years, anyone moving into the area has to accept what's there. Just because the community has changed from rural/farming/out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere to a high-priced residential area doesn't mean long-term residents should have to change to conform to new ideas about the community.
Think of it like this... a mobile home is placed on a piece of property in 1970 that includes a chicken farm. Everything has the approval of the folks in the area, and the business does OK. Now it's 2007, and that same trailer is still there along with the chickens. Time has taken a toll, but the trailer is still in use as a residence just like it has been for the past 37 years. Then some developer purchases the property next door and puts in half-million dollar homes. The new neighbors don't want to look at what they perceive to be an eye-sore, so they complain to the town to get rid of the trailer and chickens. The trailer and the business didn't change - it's the town and the new residence that have changed.
Not exactly fair to the long-term property owner. Just like any purchase - let the buyer beware (and do their homework before they buy property beside a business).
You've made some good points. But part of the problem with this particular use (salvage yard) is that the town said, "You can stay, but you cannot expand." The neighbors have said it has expanded and the enforcement officer says he gets calls once or twice a year. He goes back and says, "You have to clean up and get back in your boundaries." The owner does so and everything is fine until the next time it happens. Every time the enforcement officer is called out (for anything, and I believe every time he even sends a letter), it costs the town about $100.
I'm not taking sides, I'm just passing on what I was told. Should the town do something (I'm not necessarily saying amortizing his business) to keep this from happening again and again?
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 30th, 2007 12:22 pm |
|
| Does the business get fined? If the business IS found to be in violation, couldn't the Town's costs associated with that be passed on to the business?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 30th, 2007 02:19 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Every time the enforcement officer is called out (for anything, and I believe every time he even sends a letter), it costs the town about $100.
Sandra, I was not aware of the cost of $100 per letter or visit to a non-compliant use property owner. Does that same zoning enforcement officer also handle the non-compliance cases for Stokesdale, and if so, does Stokesdale also bear a $100 per letter or visit charge as well?
If so, that may well explain why Stokesdale has so many non-compliance zoning ordinance situations as we have alluded to under other topic threads.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
mstone
Member
| Joined: | Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oak Ridge, USA |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 31st, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
If I understand you correctly, there are clearly defined boundaries (fence or property lines) that the business must stay within. If that's correct, I think the easy solution is an ordinance that assesses a fine for each time the enforcement officer finds the owner to be in violation. The fine could increase with each repeat offense to a predetermined cap. After the first letter, a business operator gets fined $100, then $250, then $500, and finally $1000 each additional time they are outside their boundaries, they would quickly comply or go out of business. This could work for other types of violations as well.
S. Smith wrote:
But part of the problem with this particular use (salvage yard) is that the town said, "You can stay, but you cannot expand." The neighbors have said it has expanded and the enforcement officer says he gets calls once or twice a year. He goes back and says, "You have to clean up and get back in your boundaries." The owner does so and everything is fine until the next time it happens. Every time the enforcement officer is called out (for anything, and I believe every time he even sends a letter), it costs the town about $100.
I'm not taking sides, I'm just passing on what I was told. Should the town do something (I'm not necessarily saying amortizing his business) to keep this from happening again and again?
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 31st, 2007 07:13 pm |
|
Here's my understanding of how enforcement works (I'll verify this to make sure this is correct. If not, I'll come back and post a correction.)
When the enforcement officer is notified of a violation of the ordinance (this goes for any violation of the town ordinance), they notify the owner of the property, who is supposed to immediately fix the problem. If the violator fails to take "prompt corrective action," they are sent a written notice.
The violator then has 15 days from the date of the notice to comply or appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
If no appeal is made, the violation notice stands. At that point, a penalty can be assessed of $25 for the first day the use remains out of compliance, $50 for the second day, $100 for the third day, $200 for the fourth day, and $200 for every day thereafter that the violation continues. (Although this could quickly amount to a great deal of money, my understanding is the towns cannot keep these funds. According to state law, the municipality can keep 10% for administrative costs; the other 90% goes to the school system. This is why Greensboro and High Point no longer have red light cameras -- they were actually losing money.)
There are other things that can happen -- if the case goes before the BOA they can uphold or overturn the enforcement officer's ruling. If the violator doesn't agree with the BOA decision, they can appeal it to Superior Court.
Now, back to the beginning. If a violation is reported to the enforcement officer, they go and make a site visit. If they determine there is a violation, and they notify the owner and it is corrected immediately, there is no fine. However, the town still gets charged around $100 by the county. (This is not true in Summerfield because they have their own planning and enforcement staff; Oak Ridge is also discussing hiring someone to handle these duties.)
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 01:45 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Here's my understanding of how enforcement works (I'll verify this to make sure this is correct. If not, I'll come back and post a correction.)
When the enforcement officer is notified of a violation of the ordinance (this goes for any violation of the town ordinance), they notify the owner of the property, who is supposed to immediately fix the problem. If the violator fails to take "prompt corrective action," they are sent a written notice.
The violator then has 15 days from the date of the notice to comply or appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
If no appeal is made, the violation notice stands. At that point, a penalty can be assessed of $25 for the first day the use remains out of compliance, $50 for the second day, $100 for the third day, $200 for the fourth day, and $200 for every day thereafter that the violation continues. (Although this could quickly amount to a great deal of money, my understanding is the towns cannot keep these funds. According to state law, the municipality can keep 10% for administrative costs; the other 90% goes to the school system. This is why Greensboro and High Point no longer have red light cameras -- they were actually losing money.)
There are other things that can happen -- if the case goes before the BOA they can uphold or overturn the enforcement officer's ruling. If the violator doesn't agree with the BOA decision, they can appeal it to Superior Court.
Now, back to the beginning. If a violation is reported to the enforcement officer, they go and make a site visit. If they determine there is a violation, and they notify the owner and it is corrected immediately, there is no fine. However, the town still gets charged around $100 by the county. (This is not true in Summerfield because they have their own planning and enforcement staff; Oak Ridge is also discussing hiring someone to handle these duties.)
I've confirmed with the towns that this information is essentially correct, except that the towns are no longer charged $100 per incident. Due to a new contract with the towns, the county charges a flat amount per year to handle the zoning enforcement and planning duties.
Michael Brandt, Summerfield's town administrator, pointed out that the purpose of an enforcement action is to get the violator back into compliance, not charge fines. Grant Gale, zoning enforcement officer for Oak Ridge and Stokesdale, says, "It is important to understand that no two cases are ever alike and time periods and procedures may be altered to fit the need of the specific case."
|
Current time is 12:46 pm | |
|
|
|