ZBA-911 Staff Summary with ExhibitsZBA-911, 8/16 Page 1 of 3
APPEAL OF ZONING DETERMINATIONS
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 23, 2016
CASE: ZBA-911, 8/16
APPELLANT: Secof Construction Company, Inc.
LOCATION: 6100 Castle Hayne Road
PID: R01109-004-003-000
ZONING: R-15, Residential District
SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
Secof Construction Company, Inc. is appealing the two determinations that were issued in a June 2, 2016 letter
from Planning and Zoning Staff. In summary, Secof Construction Company is appealing the following
determinations:
1. The continuation of the nonconforming use of a mobile home park is not permitted.
2. The denial of a building permit application (Project ID #16-1424) based on the above determination.
STAFF SUMMARY:
The subject property historically hosted a mobile home park, which was known as the W.J. Davis Trailer Park; the
park was approved in 1966, and an expansion to the park was approved in 1968 for an additional 8 mobile home
sites in addition to the 11 mobile homes that were on the site at the time of approval. The total of 19 approved
mobile homes over the approximate 1.42 acres equated to a density of 13.4 units per acre on the approved 1968
expansion. The expansion approval in 1968 took place before the adoption of the county’s Mobile Home and
Travel Trailer Park ordinance on March 2, 1970, which was later amended on April 6, 1987.
On February 16, 1987, the county’s Zoning Ordinance was amended (Case A-143) to include language limiting
density for mobile parks to 2.5 units per acre for areas not classified as Transition by the 1986 Land Use Plan,
which classified the subject property as “Community”. The adoption and update to the Mobile Home and Travel
Trailer Park Ordinance and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance made the mobile home park on the subject
property nonconforming in regards to density, parking, buffering, street lights, and fire hydrants.
In August 2003, a plan for a revision to the Davis Mobile Home Park was submitted and proposed a total of 7
mobile homes on approximately 0.75 acres, which was less acreage than the approved 1968 plan, and the
proposed revision was approved on September 23, 2003. The 2003 approved plan reduced the degree of
nonconformity of the trailer park in regards to density, as the density of 7 units on 0.75 acres equated to 9.3 units
per acre, down from the 13.4 units per acre on the approved 1968 plan. A review of historic aerial imagery
confirms that mobile homes were on the site in 2003, and therefore the mobile home park continued as a
nonconforming mobile home park with the 2003 approved plan revision.
On October 9, 2014, Mr. Murphy met with Planning and Zoning Staff Sam Burgess, Senior Planner, and Christine
Bouffard, Zoning Compliance Official, to inquire as to whether the mobile home park could still be developed
pursuant to the 2003 plan revision. At the meeting, Mr. Burgess provided a verbal indication to Mr. Murphy that
the mobile home park could continue as a nonconforming use.
ZBA-911, 8/16 Page 2 of 3
In May 2015, Secof Construction applied for a building permit (Project ID #16-1424) to install a mobile home on
the subject property and included a site plan displaying a total of 9 mobile homes on approximately 0.75 acres.
On May 27, 2016, Mr. Murphy again met with Planning and Zoning Staff Sam Burgess and Christine Bouffard.
During that meeting, a question came up again as to whether the mobile home park could continue as a
nonconforming use. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea was invited to join the meeting to help
conclude an answer to that question. After that meeting, staff’s determination that the nonconforming mobile
home park use could not be continued was indicated in June 2, 2016 letter from Ben Andrea, along with the
determination that the building permit application would be denied as the application was based on a
noncompliant site plan.
The determination that the nonconforming mobile home park had been discontinued was based on information
that the use had been discontinued for more than 180 consecutive days. During the May 27, 2016 meeting, Mr.
Murphy indicated that the site had not hosted a mobile home for approximately 5 years. A review of historical
aerial imagery shows that the all mobile homes had been removed from the subject property sometime between
June 2006 and October 2007, and the site has remained vacant. As such, Staff concluded that the use had been
discontinued per Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 46: Abandonment and Discontinuance of Non-Conforming Situations
46-1: When a non-conforming use is discontinued for a consecutive period of one hundred eighty
(180) days, the property involved may thereafter be used only for conforming purposes. (8/17/81)
46-2: For purposes of determining whether a right to continue a non-conforming situation is lost
pursuant to this section, all of the buildings, activities and operations maintained on a lot are generally
to be considered as a whole. For example, the failure to rent one (1) apartment in a non-conforming
apartment building or one (1) space in a non-conforming mobile home park for one hundred eighty
(180) days shall not result in the loss of the right to rent that apartment or space thereafter so long as
the apartment building or mobile home park as a whole is continuously maintained. But if a non-
conforming use is maintained in conjunction with a conforming use, discontinuance of a non-
conforming use for the required period shall terminate the right to maintain it thereafter. And so, if a
mobile home is used as a non-conforming use on residential lot where a conforming residential
structure also is located, removal of that mobile home for one hundred eighty (180) days terminates
the right to replace it. (11/21/81)
Section 41 defines a non-conforming use and non-conforming situation:
41-1: Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms defined below are used in this Article in
the following manner:
(1) Non-Conforming Situation - A situation that occurs when, on the effective date of this
ordinance or any amendment hereto, an existing lot or structure, or use of an existing lot
or structure does not conform to one or more of the regulations applicable to the district
in which the lot or structure is located.
(2) Non-Conforming Lot - A lot existing at the effective date of this ordinance or any
amendment hereto that cannot meet the minimum lot area requirements of the district in
which the lot is located.
(3) Non-Conforming Use - A non-conforming situation occurs when property is used for a
purpose or in a manner made unlawful by the permitted use regulations applicable to the
district in which the property is located.
ZBA-911, 8/16 Page 3 of 3
(4) Non-Conforming Building or Structure (Dimensional Non-Conformity) - A non-conforming
situation that occurs when the height, size or minimum floor space of a building or the
relationship between an existing building and the required yard setbacks does not conform
to the regulations applicable to the district in which the property is located.
(5) Non-Conforming Project - Any structure, development or undertaking that is incomplete
at the effective date of this ordinance and would be inconsistent with any regulation
applicable to the district in which it is located if completed as proposed or planned.
(9/7/76)
In conclusion, it is Staff’s determination that the non-conforming mobile home park use had been discontinued
for at least 180 consecutive days, and therefore the subject property may only be used for conforming purposes.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant
that there is error in any decision made by the zoning administrator or other administrative officials in the carrying
out or enforcement of any provision of the Zoning Ordinance. A majority of the members of the Board shall be
necessary to reverse, wholly, or partly, any such decision. Vacant seats and disqualified members are not
considered in calculating majority.
An appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be subject to review by the Superior court
by proceedings in the nature of certiorari. Any petition for review by the Superior Court shall be filed with the
Clerk of Superior Court within 30 days after the decision of the Board is filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board,
or after a written copy thereof is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for such copy
with the Clerk or Chairman of the Board at the time of the hearing of the case, whichever is later.
ACTION NEEDED (Choose one):
1. Motion to uphold all or some of the zoning determinations issued by staff.
2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify).
3. Motion to overturn any or all of the zoning determinations issued by staff.
2/28/2006 Aerial Image – Source: Google Earth
6/30/2006 Aerial Image – Source: Google Earth
9/30/2007 Aerial Image – Source: Google Earth
6/25/2008 Aerial Image – Source: Google Earth