Man denied mobile home

Published 3:00 am Friday, April 17, 2015

After being faced with opposition from several audience members, a request to place a mobile home on a lot was denied.

Sam Brown, a resident of Enzor Road, came before the Board of Adjustments Thursday requesting a special exception to allow the placement and residential use of a mobile home and to allow for an eight-foot privacy fence facing away from any neighbors in the 300 block of Enzor Road.

Bill Harp, a neighbor of Brown’s, spoke up during the meeting and asked how many mobile homes would eventually placed on the lot and if the neighborhood’s property values would be affected with the mobile home going in.

Sign up for our daily email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

“My only question is, is this going to be the only mobile home there,” Harp asked. “If I knew for a fact, I told him I didn’t have problem with a mobile home. But, I’m afraid if one pops in, there might be one pop up behind it. I just bought a house, and I’ve put a ton of money in it. I’m afraid I’ll be standing here with an empty bag if they put it up.”

Harp wasn’t the only audience member opposed to the mobile home going in on the lot, and some had even gone elsewhere to seek information on how a mobile home would affect their property value.

“I respect Mr. Brown as wanting to do this,” said Kent Robertson, another Enzor Road resident. “I think it’s admirable, but I oppose it because in my investigation of it, and contacting people I know in the real estate industry, they have explained to me no matter the year, landscaping or privacy fencing on the lot if we did decide to sell at some point we would definitely take a negative hit on our property value.”

Brown said he intended to just put the one mobile home on the lot and hoped the offering of a privacy fence would make his case more appealing.

“I do not intend to put but one trailer on there,” Brown said. “I do, however, plan to build a house at some point for either myself or my grandson. I know what an eight-foot fence will do. That’s open land all of it is in the county except for where we’ve put the house. I keep it clean.”

But, ultimately, Brown’s decision was met with too much opposition for the board to approve his request. After having his request to place a mobile home on his lot, Brown subsequently withdrew his request for the eight-foot privacy fence saying it was not needed at this time.

The board was also met with slight opposition for a request from George and Debra Tarbox to place a four-foot high fence in front of their residence in the 2100 block of Elm Street Road. Debra Tarbox represented the couple during the meeting and said the two wished to mimic the fence style from the lot adjacent to theirs.

Al Renfroe, a local realtor, spoke for the project on behalf of Sellers Corporation.

“Mr. Sellers has asked me to come and offer support for this request,” Renfroe said. “Mr. Sellers said he felt like it would add to the character of the neighborhood. He wanted to voice his support for this request.”

But, Diana Roberson, who owns property in the area, said she was not for the project because she felt it would detract from the character of the neighborhood and its aesthetics.

“Because of the types of fences, and when you take property value in to account, when you have four different types of fence in a neighborhood one of the things appraisers look at are the aesthetics of a neighborhood,” Roberson said. “If she puts in another type of fence, another neighbor puts in another type and another neighbor puts in another fence the aesthetics look different. Just to keep the neighborhood integrity, I oppose the project.”

After a vote with two abstentions, the board approved the Tarbox’s request.

Chris Dickens, co-owner of Sweet Rack Rib Shack, also went before the board to request a variance in the sign ordinance to allow for an additional sign on the restaurant located at 65 W. Court Square.

Dickens said the ordinance allowed for a 41 square foot sign on the front of the building, and said the location’s current sign fell well within the regulations, but now the restaurant wanted to recreate signage on the façade of the building similar to the painted The Pines logo that once adorned the front as well as place a larger sign above the building’s windows.

“We want to take the black sign down, put a bench out there for our customers to sit on while they are waiting and paint like The Pines had done for their logo,” Higgins said.

Melissa Sanders, Planning and Zoning administrator, said she had received one call concerning Dickens’ request.

“The caller had specifically asked if the sign was neon,” Sanders said. “He was wondering why place it so high up then placing it down. I did explain that it didn’t need to be up in the windows. He didn’t really give opposition to it but didn’t say he was in favor of it.”

Although there was no one for or against the request, the board approved Dickens request for a variance in the sign ordinance to allow for the restaurant to add additional signage to the top of the building above its windows.

In other items of business, the board denied a request for a special exception for a Tier 2 Home Occupation to allow for the operation of a general contractor home-based business based on the cause that applicant was not present at the time of the meeting. The board also approved the minutes from the March 19 meeting.