Loading...
22-76-Order Recorded 4/7/1976S~6 1 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES yq M1 a! A r 4 In the Matter of the Denial ) VOL of a Conditional Use Application) ORDER 5 of Robert S. Anderson ) 6 This matter having come before the Board during the regular 7 course of County business; 8 And it appearing to the Board that a public hearing was held 9 February 27, 1976 to hear testimony regarding the conditional use 10 application of Robert S. Anderson: 11 And it further appearing to the Board that subsequent to said 12 hearing both the applicant and the opponent submitted proposed 13 findings of fact; 14 And it further appearing to the Board that it is necessary to 15 base its decision to approve or deny a conditional use application 16 upon findings of fact; now therefore, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings of fact which are attached 18 hereto and made a part hereof are adopted by the Board; and 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, based upon said findings of fact, 20the conditional use application of Robert S. Anderson be denied. U -o Y-o9e 21 DATED in Bend, Oregon, this % day of April, 1976. JUUZ"M W'Q -'ZO U M 22 jF:) W WZ N 20 UoI NI =1- yoW 23 o~WZ, JO~mF 24 W O 25 26 Page 1 only - ORDER BOARD OF COMMISSION) RS: airman a ,r y '~Req~ueA fox, tonditi,onal At v' . Peii9t to ai ow-,V'Lat.~imer t-.of ,4141 t ~e Home Vt~L £AC 77 within the A-.l..:Zbne of Eagle's Road, " Deschutes County, Oregon Public Hearing held' February 27, 1976 ' Courthouse Annex, Bend., Oregon The, fallo4'ing findings and -conclus.ions are fused upon testimony and exhibits presented at.ahe public hearing of February>27, 1970: CONCLUSION The conditional use permit is denied for the reasontlit the applicant has failed to satisfactorily prove that the placement of tlie;'mobile home will serve to stabilize the value of adjacent property, that it is an encouragement of the most appropriate use of,-the land, and that the allowance of, the conditional,use will promote 6T(ferly` and efficient transition from-rural to urban use. FINDINGS The denial. of the Conditional use is based. up$n ,the: following findings: The neighborhood in which the applicant proposes to place `a mobile home pursuant to a conditional use pe-Tmit is-a contiguous area of 'established conventionally constructed homes as indicated by opponetl.t's -exhibit No 1 , titled "Eag1e I s Road Ifomeowners' Study." All of the `conventionally constructed- homes within the neighborhood- have significant property value. The quality of these homes and the proximity lends a special character.to the area which promotes high property valuation. Placement of a mobile ,home within this neighborhood,` as indi€ated'by Mr. Milto'h'LaFratch , a licensed= Oregon real estate broker and flee appraiser, 'would tend to cause 'economic ohao:lescence of adjace t,properties and consequent depreciation from the upper limits of market'value.._Accord'ing to the expert testimony of dir. LaFranchi this phenomenon would occur regardless` of whether or not the particular mobile home. proposed to:,be placed on the property conformed to the pederal Mobile Home Code. The conclusion.of:Mr. LaFranchi.is supported in part by applicant's exhibit No. 4 which gropo-fis to be',a mobile home depreciation schedu3"e, setting forth the comp_~rable depreciation rates of mo'b' .le homes t would appear frofn this table that mobile homes do- in. fact depreciatg rather than appreciate:, as is the case with conventionally construc ted homes. It would seem reason,a,le to conclude that a depreciatifng home' would in fact'' have an. adverse effect on . adjacent prop.erties. Though 'some arguments have been made' by the applicant that the pro posgd..mobi'e" home is in most respects comparable to a conventionally constructed home, in that it complies with the' page 2VOl 2 PAL, 78 Federal Mobile Home.;Code, the fact remains thata mobile home is still a mobile home,' and does differ in construction quality from a conventionally constructed home. Opponent's exhibit'No."2, which is a comparison.study.of the Federal Mobile Home Code and the Uniform Building Code (Structural Code), prepared by Jerry Hoard pursuant to the request of Mr. Mark O'Donnell`, attorney, for the applicant, indicates.that, while there isnow a;great deal if similarity between mobile homes constructed pursuant. to the Federal Mobile;Home_Code 'and conventionally constructed homes, there nevertheless remain qualitative differences. These qualitative differences result in the distinction between conven- tionally constructed homes and mobile homes, which differences are apparently.reflected in lending institutions' loan policies which provide for a shorter lending period for.mobile homes than for. conventionally construcied.homes. Though he testimony cohflicted on the.time period over which a lending institution would lend money for purchase of a mobile home, the testimony did 'indicate that there would be at least. a' ten year difference. We think it is proper to `infer and conclude from these policies that mobile homes do have.sa recognized shorter economic life. This same conclusion is again~uppgrte Mbyapplcant'~exhibt No'. 4 Recognizing therefore that a mobile home-,.does have a shorter economic life, it betc~oPe,$ ;i ctamib t- upon tlve app.licant for the conditional use to''~show that this shorter economic life would not in fact adversely, e-ffe,ct; the,svalua.tr©n of adjacent properties. in .l?r`esbnted,i.0 evidence addressing` applicant n s -ease has that issue. Had the.app l} cat demonstrated.- -ehat° the particular mobile home was in fact-,in :aal. respects the equivalent of 'a conventionally constructed home, he might have carried his burden on this point. This, however,, is not the case. The testimony` presented indicates that the neighborhood has an established.character 'The character of the neigghborhood is established by the high quality of the conventionally constructed homes in conjunction with the topography. The most .appropriate; ff use of the land would be a use which is consistent in all respects with the established character of the existing, neighborhood. Thus, even though the applicant proposes a single family residential' use, the structural aspect of the use, namely, placement.of a mobile home rather than construction of a 'conventionally built, home, tends to detract from the established character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is located within close proximit" to the new St. Charles Hospital and newly constructed professional buildings. The evidence further indicates that the neighborhood. is within. the Bend- urban area. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that because of the proximity-to the hospital and the fact that the neighborhood is within the Bend urban area that the area will