• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Zoning: general Lots on a survey

VINO-El JEFE

Member
Messages
4
Points
0
Survey shows 3 lots. A double wide mobile home is proposed . It will be laced on lot 1 and lot 2.
Question: Is this okay ?

Next question: Two lots on a survey. A primary structure on lot 1 and a shed on lot 2. Is this okay?
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
18,332
Points
67
First question: again, in my opinion, no. The International Building Code might require a fire-rated wall along the property line — I think. The building would not met interior side yard setbacks for detached houses, whatever they are. There could be problems if the lots are sold separately. If the lots are nonconforming because they’re too small, the property owner could merge the lots.

Even if the lots are small, the owner has the right to a reasonable economic return, so there might be justification for a variance. (I’m thinking the only reason someone wants to put a single family mobile home across a property line is because the individual lots are too small to accommodate it without a variance.)

Second question: in my opinion, the shed on lot 2 is a principal structure, since there’s no other structure on the lot. Is it okay? Depends on the code, but if it’s residential zoning, I’d say “no”. Why? Because the principal use on the lot would be storage. If it’s commercial zoning, again I’d say “no”, unless they provide parking, landscaping, and other improvements that the code would apply to a commercial use.


If we’re talking about two “lots” but one tax parcel number and deed (common in pre-Depression subdivisions), with no way to sell the lots separately, none of what I just wrote applies. A few codes also have provisions that consider neighboring lots with the same owner as one lot, if their sizes are nonconforming. However, there might be problems later selling the lots, if an improvement crosses the property line. Mortgage lenders shy away from situations like what you described.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,298
Points
37
As Dan wrote, it depends. Here, if the lots are adjacent and in single ownership (John Doe, John Doe, and John Doe, NOT John Doe, John and Jane Doe, John Doe), then our ordinance only sees one lot for zoning purposes and both scenarios would be okay (though here, mobile homes are only permitted in planned mobile home parks).
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
12,508
Points
47
Yes, but we would ask that the 2 be combined into a single lot. If 1 lot was left entirely vacant, then it could be left as a separate lot.
 

VINO-El JEFE

Member
Messages
4
Points
0
First question: again, in my opinion, no. The International Building Code might require a fire-rated wall along the property line — I think. The building would not met interior side yard setbacks for detached houses, whatever they are. There could be problems if the lots are sold separately. If the lots are nonconforming because they’re too small, the property owner could merge the lots.

Even if the lots are small, the owner has the right to a reasonable economic return, so there might be justification for a variance. (I’m thinking the only reason someone wants to put a single family mobile home across a property line is because the individual lots are too small to accommodate it without a variance.)

Second question: in my opinion, the shed on lot 2 is a principal structure, since there’s no other structure on the lot. Is it okay? Depends on the code, but if it’s residential zoning, I’d say “no”. Why? Because the principal use on the lot would be storage. If it’s commercial zoning, again I’d say “no”, unless they provide parking, landscaping, and other improvements that the code would apply to a commercial use.


If we’re talking about two “lots” but one tax parcel number and deed (common in pre-Depression subdivisions), with no way to sell the lots separately, none of what I just wrote applies. A few codes also have provisions that consider neighboring lots with the same owner as one lot, if their sizes are nonconforming. However, there might be problems later selling the lots, if an improvement crosses the property line. Mortgage lenders shy away from situations like what you described.
Dan you rock! Thanks for the clarification
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan

VINO-El JEFE

Member
Messages
4
Points
0
As Dan wrote, it depends. Here, if the lots are adjacent and in single ownership (John Doe, John Doe, and John Doe, NOT John Doe, John and Jane Doe, John Doe), then our ordinance only sees one lot for zoning purposes and both scenarios would be okay (though here, mobile homes are only permitted in planned mobile home parks).
Gedunker, Thank you for your expertise. One issue is that there are no planned mobile home parks. crazy as it may seem. I wonder if this is a benefit or curse. considering the property maintenance code. I'm very concerned about regulating mobile home parks.. The subject matter is mobile home on an R-1 district . Should i write a new ordinance ? ? ?
 
Top