With regard to this issue, we offer the following points. 1. Is this a frivolous use of the PWD Lead Man’s time? Wouldn’t the public interest be better served by sending a Council Member with Mayor Miller for the purposes of measuring? 2. When an existing structure is torn down, isn’t its entire “footprint” removed? “Grandfathered in” would no longer apply and any new structure should comply with any and all current zoning regulations. 3. The “proposed structure” is a semi trailer sans axles, certainly an “unintended use”. Would this set a precedent for all property owners within the Town of Fromberg; allowing them the same opportunity? 4. The interest in “Tiny Houses’ is burgeoning across our Nation. Could the approval of this zoning variance set a precedent paving the way for a myriad of other “unintended uses”? 5. Mayor Miller mentioned the word “office”numerous times, seeming to indicate a business use. Should this property be re-zoned as commercial as opposed to its current “residential urban” designation? 6. Given these complex circumstances, shouldn’t adjacent property owners been given official notice with regard to this zoning variance? Fromberg needs to be Proactive, not Reactive.
Please view the Video at the link below:
Actual Semi Trailer Pictured Below. Its Length?
I thought we elected a new mayor??? Instead we continue as a town with no thought process as to the long term effects we place on our neighborhoods! Once again our so called “Leadership” has failed us! The Mayor made a bad decision by even bringing this issue to the council! Talk about misrepresentation of the facts…more initial research should have done! Do us a favor and put that damn ugly thing in your yard and thrill your neighbors! Considerate thought process before action would be much appreciated! Although, if I held my breath waiting for that to happen I would be dead! Of course you’re incapable of draining the swamp, you have become the swamp! Dreading the next two years!
Nonconforming uses and structures are not illegal uses and structures; they are generally allowed to continue as is, subject to local restrictions. In Rhod-A-Zalea v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 7 (1998), the state supreme court explained the basis for this treatment of nonconforming uses:
The theory of the zoning ordinance is that the nonconforming use is detrimental to some of those public interests (health, safety, morals or welfare) which justify the invoking of the police power. Although found to be detrimental to important public interests, nonconforming uses are allowed to continue based on the belief that it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to require an immediate cessation of a nonconforming use.
Local restrictions typically prohibit expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. Nonconforming uses usually lose their legal status under local regulations if they are discontinued for a particular period of time, such as six months or a year. Nonconforming structures typically lose their legal status if they are destroyed, such as by fire, in whole or in part. (copy and pasted from http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Development-Regulations/Nonconforming-Uses-Structures-and-Lots-Regulatio.aspx)