Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM Letters / Memos - 9/10/2004 Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association, Inc. 30 Greenville Street Second Floor■Newnan■Georgia■30263-2602 Phone 770-251-2672■FAX 770-25 l-0025 Web site: http://www.rptia.org■E-Mail:rptia@mail2.newnanutilities.org Friday, September 10,2004 Subject: Legal Definitions for Recreational Park Trailers To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed are quotations from the various national definitions used for Recreational Park Trailers with information detailing how these definitions were established and who uses them. These definitions are taken from the federal laws and regulations promulgated by HUD;the nationally recognized ANSI Standards adopted by the RPTIA and by state agencies of government; and in the definition found in the bylaws of the RPTIA-the national trade association which represents the manufacturers and suppliers and the state or national associations who primarily represent the RV dealers and RV park owners. To assist you in identifying the actual law,regulation or the by-laws, the quoted copy has been printed in italics. It is our hope that you will find this information helpful. While these definitions are not quite identical,they are very close in content. FEDERAL LAW This definition of a manufactured home comes from the federal law-Title IV The National Manufacturer Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974-as amended,which requires that all manufactured homes be constructed in accordance with construction requirements promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). The definition for a manufactured home in the federal law as it exists today is found under Section 603 (6)of the law. It is quoted below: "Manufactured Home"means a structure transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or forty body feet or more in length, or when erected on sight, is three hundred twenty or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems contained therein;except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this paragraph except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer,voluntarily files a certification required by the secretary and complies with the standards established under this title, The manufactured housing definition stipulated in this law includes most recreational park trailers as it is inclusive of all units that exceed 320 square feet when erected on site. However,when the law was last amended by Congress in October of 1980,the House and Senate versions of the Bill had taken different positions over the minimum size required for a unit to be considered a manufactured home. The Senate version stated that 400 square feet should be the threshold while the House called for a smaller 320 square feet. To resolve these differences a congressional conference committee was convened. The conference committee determined that the law should be passed using the 320 square feet minimum size as was proposed by the House. At the same time however,the conference committee also stated that-"The Secretary of HUD was to consider differing, more flexible standards for smaller Manufactured Homes(such as park trailers) whose square footage is between 320 and 400 square feet and are designed to be frequently transported". (Directions given to an agency of the federal government found in a conference committee report are considered to have almost the same force as the law when an agency is setting regulations to implement the law.) Since the passage of this law, HUD determined not to set standards specifically adapted for these structures but rather has issued a series of regulatory actions(with superseding qualifying definitions)exempting the manufacturers of these 320-400 square foot recreation vehicles"Park Legal Definitions For Recreational Park Trailers Page#2of3 Models" from meeting the Manufactured Housing Standard. Previous editions of this HUD regulation allowing for the exemption of Recreational Park Trailers required that these products be constructed of such a width as to not require a special movement permit. Other previous requirements had called for the inclusion of full self-containment for the park trailers,but both of these requirements are no longer in the regulation. The current HUD regulation,which was put in place on June 22, 1982,reads as follows: Part 3282.8 Applicability (g)Recreational vehicles: Recreational Vehicles are not subject to this Part, Part 3280, or Part 3283. A recreational vehicle is a vehicle which is: (1)built on a single chassis; (2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (3)self propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and(4)designed primarily not to be used as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. It should also be noted,when Congress passed this law they made it preemptive of all state and local laws, effectively barring any state or local unit of government from passing more stringent requirements. HUD also states that they retain the authority to promulgate a unique and separate standard for recreational park trailers should they deem such a standard to be necessary and appropriate. American National Standard Institute-Standard A119.5 for Recreational Park Trailers The nationally recognized consensus standard which stipulates the minimum construction requirements for building a recreational park trailer was created under the auspices of the American National Standard Institute-and has been published as ANSI Standard A119.5 for Recreational Park Trailers. The current edition was promulgated in 1998 using the accredited canvass method. This standard covers over 500 safety requirements for recreational park trailer construction. Fourteen states have adopted the ANSI A119.5 Standard and require that all units sold in these states be constructed to meet this standard. The definition used in the A119.5 Recreational Park Trailer Standard is as follows: Recreational Park Trailer: A trailer type unit that is primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use, that meets the following criteria: (a) Built on a single chassis mounted on wheels. (b) Having a gross trailer area not exceeding 400 square feet(37.15 sq. m) in the set-up mode. (c) Certified by the manufacturer as complying with ANSI A119.5 Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association,Inc. The national association which represents 95%of all Recreational Park Trailer production in the United States has defined Recreational Park Trailers in their bylaws as: A "Recreational Park Trailer is a recreation vehicle that is primarily designed to provide. temporary living quarters for recreation, camping or seasonal use. Built on a single chassis mounted on wheels which has a gross trailer area not exceeding 400 square feet in the set-up mode and is certified by the manufacturer as complying with ANSI A 119.5. The Association also mandates that its manufacturing members submit a written public pledge that as members of the RPTIA their production of recreational park trailers will be in conformance with the A 119.5 Standard. The Association conducts frequent unannounced inspections at the manufacturers place of production using qualified third-party inspection agencies. Members who Legal Definitions For Recreational Park Trailers Page#3 of 3 fail to maintain their pledge of A119.5 compliance are subject to dismissal from the Association. A brochure which describes this Standards program in greater detail is enclosed. Although these three definitions are not exact duplicates they all basically cover the key issues in the same way. In summary,Recreational Park Trailers are Recreation Vehicles designed and intended to be used for recreational,camping and seasonal use. These units are sold by Recreational Vehicle dealers who are licensed to sell RVs. Recreational Park Trailers are primarily used by their owners as seasonal dwellings which are typically sited in RV parks and campground resorts on sites that are owned, rented or leased and are then occupied by their owners as seasonal or vacation dwellings. We hope that this information is of value but if you need additional clarification,the RPTIA will be available to assist you. Please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, W. R. "Bill" Garpow Executive Director P. 1 3 00 q To Kell McAboy Via Email&Fax#360-427-8425 From Darin Barry Cel 360-927-1105 Robin Hood Village Date June 3,2006 Kell,Please accept my invitation to call me directly on issues regarding Robin Hood Village in the future. I would also appreciate a call to Set appointments with me before you visit. I can always be reached by Cel phone and if you get my message I will return your call the same day. (Cel 360-927-1105). I'm sure your visits are intended to help us improve our Tourism Business and to develop our property in an appropriate way, and I do understand the importance of understanding and following the County Code. We are very serious about developing our property to its fullest potential, and we would like to work on developing a strong relationship with you an i the County so that we can work together in a positive fashion. In an effort to clear up some of the issues that came I of your last visit here are a few notes: The"Road"that you accused Ned Kjeldgaard(V. P. Operations)of building has been there for years. You can see it on a map of the property which has been on our website for years, and you can also see it on some of the pictures attached. In fact not only didn't we put the road in,we have actually reduced the foot print of the road. Since the road had 2 access points (which have been there for years)we decided we could do with only l and end up with more landscaped area for the enjoyment of our guests. That is why you can see we have torn up a part of the road and planted trees in it's footprint. Our two new RV's. These are RV's. We are not required to have a permit to have an RV in an RV park. I would expect that a permit would be required to put an RV on a lot zoned for Single Family Residence, but we are an RV park- -The title shows that they are RV's. -The metal certification on the side certifies them as RV's. -I've attached an industry slide show which is designed to educate local governments on these RV's. RPTIA.COM(Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association) site is full of technical data to show that these are RV's if you would like further information. The area between the tent sites and the RV Park. This area has been a maintained landscaped area for years, including the tent sites. I understand that if we were building a new RV park today that it would be unlikely that we iWould be able to obtain a permit to build our RV Park the way that it was built. The fact is that these RV sites and the entire area from the Tent sites to the RV Park have been maintained as a"landscaped area" for years. There are many pictures to prove this, and it is obvious that the grass has been mowed and maintained. Pg. 59 of the MSRO tells us that Maintenance and use of existing landscaped areas within a buffer area ...is an activity which does not require a P- 2 Mason Environmental permit. "Maintenance and use includes mowing,weeding, trimming, replacement of vegetation types,placing landscaping walls...... I understand that your associate said that the area"looked like a parking lot". Please understand that our Forester said that we would need to break up the top layer of ground if we expected the new trees to grow. The entire area has been re-seeded but it needs time to grow. The last time you issued a"stop work" order it cost us ove a month by the time we were able to get the sub-contractor back to finish removing the to danger trees. I was glad that your group rescinded the"stop work"order after you undersod that we were within our rights,and I only hope that we don't have to go through the same process now regarding the ground vegetation that was under the danger trees. Most of that"vegetation" was berry bushes, Ivy, Holly, and grass,all of which was maintained with a weed wacker and a lawn mower on a regular basis. Since we did not remove this vegetation, I'm sure you are aware that over the next few weeks it will start to grow back. June,July, August, & September is our busy season,and additional delays would cause significant economic damage to our business. Kell,my group is starting to feel as if your group is out to get us and catch us doing something bad. We are in fact trying to take steps to lesson the future environmental impact on the stream and the entire property. In fact, as you know I am considering purchasing the to acres next to Robin Hood so that we could focus our future development further away from the stream. We asked 1 you some very important questions last week regarding this opportunity. (I've reattached the memo). If you are uncomfortable answering the questions,perhaps you could refer me to someone within the County that could help me. In addition to the questions regarding density potential and clustering which I outlined in the previous memo, I would also like to discuss a section of the code titled"Stewardship Options and Incentives". Open Space Bonus", Open Space Tax Assessment', Density Credit", and"Conservation Futures"(page 57 & 58)all seem like potential win-win ways for us to work together to maximize the economic potential for the property while at the same time maximizing the protection for the Critical �reas. I hope that you will agree that working together on the big picture will certainly have more productive and further reaching outcomes. I'll look forward to a call at your earliest convenience to set up a meeting with you or whoever you think I would be better referred to. Thanks Darin Barry 360-927-1105 P. To Robert Fink Via Email & Fax#360-427-8425 Planning Manager, MCCD From Darin Barry Cel 360-927-1105 Owner, Robin Hood Village URGENT Date June 7, 2006 Mr. Fink, I understand that my file is on your desk hopefully not causing you any extra grief. I recently purchased the 15 acres referred to as Robin Hood Village in Union,WA. I am also contemplating the acquisition of the adjacent 10 acres referred to as the Union Bay Hot Tub Cabins. After talking with Casey Conquist the executive director of the Chamber of Commerce I drafted and sent a letter to Lynda Ring Erickson, Tim Sheldon, &Jayni Kaminl (Attached). I understand from Kell McAboy that the letter on your desk may be asking for me to come in and lay out the vision so that we can work though your holistic approach to planning which I think is great. As you can see from my letter to the Commissioners, I am still several weeks away from having a`vision"that I am willing to commit to. Since I purchased the initial 15 acres I've just been doing some minor housekeeping,while I take time to understand the community and come up with a plan for the best use of the property. But I understand that my"housekeeping"may have caused your staff some stress and concern. Specifically,the removal of the Danger Trees. Please understand that these trees were pointed out to me the first week I purchased the property by several people as trees that people had been pointing out to the previous owner for years as being a hazard. I hired a reputable contractor, did core samples, and you can imagine my shock when a "stop work"order was posted in the middle of the project_ Tlie contractors left and I had a mess for 3 weeks until I was able to explain the steps that we had taken and your staff finally rescinded the "stop work" order. I find myself in a similar situation with the 2 Park Model RV's I recently purchased. Please understand my surprise that a permit would be required to put an RV in a Mobile Horne&RV park that has allowed RV's for over 50 years without permits. I know we will come to a positive resolution as I can think of 3 ways and there is probably more to proceed. (I've attached 2 pictures showing the park models in space #8 & 9 and another picture showing other RV's in the same space#8 &#9) 1. Permit and place on a space that has historically been used for permanent mobile. 2. County Recognizes them as RV's and place in an RV space without a permit. 3. I have 100 plus legal lots(40 x 100) and will add another 60 lots with the purchase of the hot tub cabins and we could permit them onto an individual lot. My simple request is that you please lift the"stop work" order as we work through these options. I spent$100,000 getting these RV's here so that I could use them to serve Tourists in the busy season which is upon us. Letting them sit idle will cause a large economic damage that I will not be able to recoup. I'm sure there are even more solutions that you and your sta can come up with. If we have not come to a win-win solution in 90 days you could simply reinstate a stop work order. I'm traveling this week but would make special arrangements to come and meet with you ASAP if it is required. I apologize for this being our first communication Kell McAboy- Re: Robin Hood Village Page 1 From: "darin barry" <darinbarry@hotmail.com> To: <KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 6/5/2006 7:41:13 PM Subject: Re: Robin Hood Village To Kell McAboy, Mason County Community Development, Planner From Darin Barry, Owner Robin Hood Village RE Robin Hood Village - Stop Work Orders#1937 &#1938 Date June 5, 2006 Thanks for the note. I'd like to initiate the appropriate steps to request a re-interpretation of the code as it pertains to my two new RV's. . The objective of the code sections you refer to is to prevent an RV park from turning into low cost housing and/or permanent domiciles. As you know, I have a mobile home park, and if I wanted to provide permanent domiciles I would have bought mobile homes and I would have placed them in the Mobile Home Park. Mobile homes provide a much more economical solution for permanent living square footage than these RV's which I purchased. These RV's are not suited for full time living. It is our full intention to use these brand new RV's for the purpose of vacation and seasonal dwellings rentals, not as full time domiciles. Our Cottage business which has provided nightly rentals to Tourists since 1934 has more demand than supply, and the RV's were purchased to allow and expansion for this Tourism business. The adding of these two RV's for nightly rentals is being done in conjunction with a Regional TV Campaign that will be promoting the Hood Canal and the Cottages at Robin Hood Village every Sunday night on "Northwest Backroads". This will be an ongoing campaign that will be viewed in 17,000 homes every Sunday throughout Oregon, Washington, & Idaho. The RV's have already been rented for most of the month of July and several other date so a timely resolution here is very important in order to avoid a large damage to our Tourism business. I can not imagine that the County Council members would want the staff to create such a strict enforcement action when the code was clearly not developed to discourage the growth of a Tourism business. Perhaps a conversation and a few meetings would be more productive than a "stop work" order. I would appreciate it if you could copy this to Tammy Griffey whose name was on the"stop work"orders. I would also appreciate if it you could copy this to whoever would be involved in a review process. Allan Borden - RV's Page 1 From: Rose Swier To: Kell McAboy Date: 11/2/2006 3:28 pm Subject: RV's How can I be included in the discussions on planning the new RV ordinance? I want to make sure that proper solid waste, drinking water and septic issues are being addressed and that there is some language regarding modifying the RV's. We have several around the county who have installed woodstoves (building and fire can't enforce because they aren't structures)... and others that have permanent addresses affixed to the outside of them.... with porches and flower gardens (no longer movable). Most of these are not located in parks, but are set up on lots in RR5 zoning as permanent structures for living in year round. Rose Swier, Public Health Environmental Health Specialist III Mason County Department of Health Services PO Box 1666 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 584 i I To Kell McAboy Via Email From Ned Kjeldgaard I RE Robin Hood Village Date May 29, 2006 Hi Kell, On the Park Models in the RV park)we are happy to do whatever we need to do. It was our understanding that we did not need any permits to put an RV into an existing RV spot within an existing RV park. We have not created new RV sites here, these RV sites have been here for years. We understand that if we were to try and create more RV sites we would of course have to comply wAh the existing set back requirements. I do need your help on another matter. We are considering purchasing the 10 acres next to Robin Hood Village (Union Bay Pot Tub Cabins). This property has approximately 60 platted lots (40' x 60') (Union City, Volume 1 of Plats-All of block 92 and the majority of block 101), many with great views of the Hood Canal. Assuming that we could organize solutions for water and sewer,what steps would we need to go through with the planning department in order to place park models or mobile homes on these lots? I'm assuming that this may be closer to the example you gave of the park model that just went in on Hwy 106. Initially we would only want to put'5 or 6 total, but for the long-term we would like to understand the answers to the following questions: 1- With 60 platted lots what would be the maximum number that we would be able to put on this property. 2- If we wanted to conserve more green space could we"cluster"the maximum number into a smaller foot print so that we could leave more open area for recreation. Kell, we are working with a 7 day deadline in order to become educated on our options and make a decision to move forwaid on this acquisition or not. Thanks for your help. Ned Ki eldgaard 360-463-6305 I s •d Kell McAboy- Robin Hood Village Page 1 From: "darin barry" <darinbarry@hotmail.com> (.��`'C� I To: <kellM@co.mason.wa.us> —�—' Date: 5/29/2006 11:46:45 AM �P'� a g �` H pc�✓� Subject: Robin Hood Village W To Kell McAboy Via Email From Ned Kjeldgaard 2`f r5 RE Robin Hood Village Date May 29, 2006 Hi Kell, On the Park Models in the RV park we are happy to do whatever we need to do. It was our understanding that we did not need any permits to put an RV into an existing RV spot within an existing RV park. We have not created new RV sites here, these RV sites have been here for years. We understand that if we were to try and create more RV sites we would of course have to comply with the existing set back requirements. I do need your help on another matter. We are considering purchasing the 10 acres next to Robin Hood Village (Union Bay Hot Tub Cabins). This property has approximately 60 platted lots (40'x 60') (Union City, Volume 1 of Plats —All of block 92 and the majority of block 101), many with great views of the Hood Canal. Assuming that we could organize solutions for water and sewer, what steps would we need to go through with the planning department in order to place park models or mobile homes on these lots? I'm assuming that this may be closer to the example you gave of the park model that just went in on Hwy 106. Initially we would only want to put 5 or 6 total, but for the long-term we would like to understand the answers to the following questions: 1- With 60 platted lots what would be the maximum number that we would be able to put on this property. 2- If we wanted to conserve more green space could we "cluster" the maximum number into a smaller foot print so that we could leave more open area for recreation. Kell, we are working with a 7 day deadline in order to become educated on our options and make a decision to move forward on this acquisition or not. Thanks for your help. Ned Kjeldgaard 360-463-6305 CC: <nedkjeldgaard@hotmail.com> Kell McAboy- Robin_-Hood Village- More Info _ Page 1 r From: "darin barry" <darinbarry@hotmail.com> To: <KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 6/6/2006 7:58:24 AM Subject: Robin Hood Village- More Info To Kell McAboy Via Email & Fax From Darin Barry Robin Hood Village RE Stop Work Orders Date June 6, 2006 Hi Kell, after another night of trying to educate myself on Mason County Development Code I decided to talk to the old owners who have helped to clear some things up for me. Parcel#322325093001 which is comprised of both the upper and lower village has a land use of"Mobile Home Courts & Parks" as recorded on the Assessors website. Although I have not been able to find a definition of this anywhere in the County Code I can tell you that the property has had long term tenants (over 1 year) in both the upper and lower village for many years. It is also clear that RV's have also historically stayed in this "Mobile Home Court& Park"without obtaining a building permit, while Mobile Homes that are set up as permanent structures have been permitted. Please remember, all I'm trying to do is add two brand new places for Tourist to stay when they visit the Hood Canal. And to make sure that dead trees don't fall on their heads when they are here. Where does this leave us? Does the historic use that was established well before the code was written hold any water? Thanks for helping me work through this. Darin Barry 360-927-1105 CC: <darinbarry@hotmail.com>, <jmacfern@comcast.net>, <nedkjeldgaard@hotmail.com> Kell McAboy- Re- Robin Hood Village - _ — - -- _-- Page 2 f >From: "Kell McAboy" <KellM@co.mason.wa.us> >To: "darin barry" <darinbarry@hotmail.com> >CC: "Robert Fink" <Rdf@co.mason.wa.us>,"Stephanie Pawlawski" ><Stephap@co.mason.wa.us>,"Tam i Griffey" ><Tlg@co.mason.wa.us>,<jmacfern@comcast.net>,<nedkjeldgaard@hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: Robin Hood Village >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:03:38 -0700 >Darin, >Thank you for your contact information. I appreciate your willingness >to work together in a positive fashion. >This email is intended to address the issues you raised. Feel free to >contact me to schedule a meeting if you prefer. >1 have forwarded the pictures you sent me to our Code Enforcement >Officer, Stephanie Pawlawski in order to help her determine which areas >need to be restored. >Regarding the two new RVs, per the MCDC 1.04.347 Special Provisions. >RV parks shall comply with the following additional standards: >A. No recreational vehicle shall remain in the RV park for rental >purposes or for a time period of more than 120 consecutive days and 180 >days in a 360 day period (this standard applies to new occupants at >existing mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, and to new mobile >home and recreational vehicle parks). The RV park management shall >maintain rental records identifying each RV and registered occupants and >shall present them to the county on written request. Failure to maintain >or to present these records on request shall be sufficient grounds to >rescind the RV park permit. >Therefore, regardless of whether the Mason County Building Department >would require a building permit for the two new RVs, they are not >allowed for rental purposes and shall be removed. >The 60 platted lots adjacent to the Robin Hood Village is zoned RR2.5 >(Rural Residential 2.5)which would allow mobile homes or park models. >Standard building setbacks from property lines are 20 feet for side and >rear yards and 25 feet for front yards. Front and rear yard setbacks may >be reduced as provided in Section 1.05.034C. to a minimum of 10 feet and >side yard setbacks may be reduced as provided in Section 1.05.034D. to a >minimum of 5 feet. Environmental Health Department issues aside, the >planning department allows one residence per legally established lot, as >long as you can meet the setbacks as stated above. >It is recommended that you have a pre-application meeting with all >County departments if you have plans to develop the property. That way >all departments are present to address all the issues. The application >is online at: >http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/Community_Dev/presubmission.pdf >Again, please feel free to contact me to schedule a meeting if you feel >that is necessary in addition to the Pre-Application meeting. >Sincerely, r n,:.+ _ E'er ,. ?r J . a �, � � ,ii•i� r�. /i ,� /��,' 'ram , ',. � � •,/'� t a+ • f + J S i. f� - fI �A , . `� zw• ~. ���'�'�n� a yiN4 �•Y. E .-i����s �� � r • jt � '� + � • .w sit •'�,;s,, r ,._ ., � 5. All _ � RCS. .. r ' � 4 •� .• � � � �.,�fir '• tee• ,.e .. . �,` ` ;.� � „..•�•• - �,. �7„r ,/y i'f F��i." Ore g'� �.�� �( 'rwTi�Kt..t• �: '•. ., -.1 f i •„` •� xr a :S. .Y � •`R�•.ifi Ili . +.'i����lf ,�t'� tc�," �-' �.! ..• . .�'� • +�� � r Opp _ ... _.awlsM'n'.' " ..... .. .... ".!k..- .r.-.-e"'.` y�p�!•..G.� S'A �.�I,• _ h.✓"!w'w�F+ +J" f , ��_` - + � .tom KEG Y ^.•�rY�• Y 7� i JI�� � .• ,� � 17. �, a ,�� s� � � .�, x ;��' � t, ,, j• .. •, i ly . , �y§':..a �f�k 5,�( t. :'E„ " �,.� + /r�."sit.'f A.v� � `!; 'j; f i�1f.J'' t. 4t '�•h a• Aaz • N d r.$,' �y+•,�i.hr. — ,�.. .i•. •�rl_�L._� -'� _ .. '°*1'I:w.•.�M � \�,._:—••tea �� • • • t 1 � ,� v. 1 .,► •: �• �.- rep � « . / �'4.. + y-+►t. .�'• fib: '-, wl MIN jr .,� ram' , - 1 r w 1 y. Y S 4 t ♦� Y x. y. v Y c t. ivt 40 <K• yj,} !fir'. ): hA..- ISM AWN -L `• i. 1, ••, ��* �_ /�N r � '�`II '« ,�'�. � �r`. • •r • � • .� Y r� h" - ,�.i�+S �. *, - .,ram {1. r �- r i t !1 e' �`• � f t � �� •� ,. � - .'N._ � ''x• -TY!'.� _�• 'i i►• '• mat r ��e, / .1 t y � � ' r OLf A. op -40 A/ kr ma. maw r- Page 1 of 1 dij Mm , .rSM...^'�, __I►.ram 14 Jim w. T . r l � 2D0 S"a 4I-f B http://65.54.229.250/cgi-bin/getmsg/284307-RI-23-22A.jpg?&msg=8A503118-DCAF-4B4... 6/9/2006 Page 1 of 1 14 Op .., .� http://65.54.229.250/cgi-bin/getmsg/284307-R1-25-24A.jpg?&msg=8A503118-DCAF-4B47-BCBC-11 E3378C4FD 1&start=0&l... 6/9/2006 it�,,c,. c .fit F S p. ; � '�'si,e.• rj �.. .r -k ire • �Iy 4 ".� im - t � , •— + .-` ;ti^ fir. 4�...�. e, To Commissioner Lynda Ring Erickson Commissioner Tim Sheldon Commissioner Jayni Kamin cc. Emmett Dobey From Darin Barry Cel 360-927-1105 Owner,Robin Hood Village 6780 State Rte. 106 Union, WA RE Outdated Ordinances regarding RV Parks Date July 18, 2006 Consumer habits have evolved in RV Park segment of the Tourism industry, and we need your help to make sure that our County Codes evolve to keep pace. Here are 2 important trends and associated Tourism opportunities that current County Codes prevent us from participating in. 1. Home Base/Storage Concept: Whereas in the past an RV owner may keep their RV under a tarp in their side yard and use it 4 or 5 times per year,the new concept is that they leave their RV at an RV park they can enjoy year round, enabling them to use it more often with hassle and expense of hauling. The 4 or 5 times a year when they want to go for an extended trip they simply go. Without the set-up time and the gas expense people are encouraged to become"tourist"more often. Although the intent behind the current County Code is good, it is written in such a way as the unintended consequences of the language prevent RV park owners from marketing this concept. Specifically, current County Code prevents an RV from being in an RV park for more than 180 days in any calendar year. The intention of the code is to prevent RV parks from being turned into slums and to prevent an RV from being used as a permanent domicile which it was not designed nor manufactured to be. Perhaps the Code could be amended to say what it intends, "RV parks shall not allow full time habitation of RV's." 2. Park Model RV's. (Article attached). For the masses that love the idea of RV'ing but don't want to buy an RV and maintain an RV the Park Model Concept is perfect. This is the fastest growing segment of the RV market. Tourists come and pay and stay on a nightly basis just like a motel room. Great Tourism business,but the way current County Code is written again prevents this business with unintended consequences of the language. Code prevents the rental of an RV in an RV park. The 180 day rule above also conflicts with this concept. Again the intent of the code is to prevent an RV park from being turned into low cost full time rentals, and to prevent full time occupation of a vehicle which was not designed nor intended for full time habitation. Again, it would work if the actual intention was written and then simply require RV parks to maintain records to satisfy the County. (9/13/2007) Kell McAboy- RV Park Models Page 1 From: Barbara Adkins To: Kell McAboy Date: 9/13/2007 10:13 AM Subject: RV Park Models CC: Barbara Robinson; Robert Fink Kell, met with Bob and Barbara on Monday and we discussed the RV park model project that I gave you. Bob indicated that any violations that Ryan found out there are separate from this particular issue and need to be enforced. What we need to do at this point is determine what the implications are of allowing n RV n it p p ga o site � permanently(e.g. septic,water, enforcement of temporary use). Before we can decide whether the County can amend its regulations to allow this or not, we need to know that facts. Can you take a look at this? Thanks, Barbara Robert Fink- Urgent Communication /Robin Hood Village Page 2 individual lot. MY SIMPLE REQUEST IS THAT YOU PLEASE LIFT THE "STOP WORK" ORDER WHILE WE WORK THROUGH THESE OPTIONS. I spent$100,000 getting these RV's here so that I could use them to serve Tourists in the busy season which is upon us. Letting them sit idle will cause a large economic damage that I will not be able to recoup. I'm sure there are even more solutions that you and your staff can come up with. If we have not come to a win-win solution in 90 days you could simply reinstate a stop work order. I'm traveling this week but would make special arrangements to come and meet with you ASAP if it is required. I apologize for this being our first communication. Kell McAboy_- Re: Robin Hood Village Page 1 From: Kell McAboy To: darin barry Date: 6/5/2006 6:03:38 PM Subject: Re: Robin Hood Village Darin, Thank you for your contact information. I appreciate your willingness to work together in a positive fashion. This email is intended to address the issues you raised. Feel free to contact me to schedule a meeting if you prefer. I have forwarded the pictures you sent me to our Code Enforcement Officer, Stephanie Pawlawski in order to help her determine which areas need to be restored. Regarding the two new RVs, per the MCDC 1.04.347 Special Provisions. RV parks shall comply with the following additional standards: A. No recreational vehicle shall remain in the RV park for rental purposes or for a time period of more than 120 consecutive days and 180 days in a 360 day period (this standard applies to new occupants at existing mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, and to new mobile home and recreational vehicle parks). The RV park management shall maintain rental records identifying each RV and registered occupants and shall present them to the county on written request. Failure to maintain or to present these records on request shall be sufficient grounds to rescind the RV park permit. Therefore, regardless of whether the Mason County Building Department would require a building permit for the two new RVs, they are not allowed for rental purposes and shall be removed. The 60 platted lots adjacent to the Robin Hood Village is zoned RR2.5 (Rural Residential 2.5)which would allow mobile homes or park models. Standard building setbacks from property lines are 20 feet for side and rear yards and 25 feet for front yards. Front and rear yard setbacks may be reduced as provided in Section 1.05.034C. to a minimum of 10 feet and side yard setbacks may be reduced as provided in Section 1.05.034D. to a minimum of 5 feet. Environmental Health Department issues aside, the planning department allows one residence per legally established lot, as long as you can meet the setbacks as stated above. It is recommended that you have a pre-application meeting with all County departments if you have plans to develop the property. That way all departments are present to address all the issues. The application is online at: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/Community Dev/presubmission.pdf Again, please feel free to contact me to schedule a meeting if you feel that is necessary in addition to the Pre-Application meeting. Sincerely, Kell McAboy, Land Use Planner Mason County DCD 411 N. 5th/P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 360.427.9670 ext. 363 >>> "darin barry" <darinbarry@hotmail.com> 06/04/06 8:51 PM >>> To Kell McAboy Via Email & Fax#360-427-8425 Kell McAboy- Re: Robin Hood Village Page order it cost us over a month by the time we were able to get the sub-contractor back to finish removing the danger trees. I was glad that your group rescinded the "stop work" order after you understood that we were within our rights, and I only hope that we don't have to go through the same process now regarding the ground vegetation that was under the danger trees. Most of that"vegetation"was berry bushes, Ivy, Holly, and grass, all of which was maintained with a weed wacker and a lawn mower on a regular basis. Since we did not remove this vegetation, I'm sure you are aware that over the next few weeks it will start to grow back. June, July, August, & September is our busy season, and additional delays would cause significant economic damage to our business. Kell, my group is starting to feel as if your group is out to get us and catch us doing something bad. We are in fact trying to take steps to lesson the future environmental impact on the stream and the entire property. In fact, as you know I am considering purchasing the 10 acres next to Robin Hood so that we could focus our future development further away from the stream. We asked you some very important questions last week regarding this opportunity. (I've reattached the memo). If you are uncomfortable answering the questions, perhaps you could refer me to someone within the County that could help me. In addition to the questions regarding density potential and clustering which I outlined in the previous memo, I would also like to discuss a section of the code titled "Stewardship Options and Incentives". "Open Space Bonus", "Open Space Tax Assessment", "Density Credit", and "Conservation Futures"(page 57 & 58)all seem like potential win-win ways for us to work together to maximize the economic potential for the property while at the same time maximizing the protection for the Critical Areas. I hope that you will agree that working together on the big picture will certainly have more productive and further reaching outcomes. I'll look forward to a call at your earliest convenience to set up a meeting with you or whoever you think I would be better referred to. Thanks Darin Barry 360-927-1105 CC: jmacfern@comcast.net; nedkjeldgaard@hotmail.com; Robert Fink; Stephanie Pawlawski; Tami Griffey (12/18/2007) Kell McAboy- Fwd. Robin Hood Village/Park Models Page 1 From: Barbara Robinson To: Barbara Adkins; Kell McAboy Date: 12/17/2007 4:13 PM Subject: Fwd: Robin Hood Village/ Park Models Have we made any progress on this? Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarr@co.mason.wa.us >>> darin barry <darinbarrvCalhotmail.com> 12/17/2007 2:28 PM >>> Barbara,your note(below)said you'd have an update for me? I had an offer to purchase the Resort 2 weeks ago that fell through because there was no resolution to the Park Model issue that was started almost a year and a half ago. There are several ways to go forward that will allow the County to maintain it's existing codes or make very small changes that will ensure that people do not"live"in RV parks,which is the intent of the existing code, it just is not written effectively. As I'm sure you are aware,I don't want to have anyone"live" in my RV park,I'm trying to service the Tourism market which is short stays,the exact type of stays that RV parks are supposed to service. I still believe it would be beneficial for us to have a half hour meeting,just like I did with Mr. Dobey&Mr.Shelton. I'd hate to see a solution that does not meet my needs,which will only result in more time and legal expense for me and for the County. Darin Barry 360-927-1105 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:39:06-0800> From: BarbarRCcbco.mason.wa.us>To: darinbarryCabhotmail.com> Subject: Re: Park Model RV's/ Robin Hood Village> > Darin...we are working on this code issue, but have not come to any> final determination on what changes if any should be made.We have one> of our planners working on this project, however, she is out at a> shoreline hearing all day today,so I won't have an update for you until> tomorrow. > > Barbara Robinson> Community Development Director> Mason County> P.O. Box 279> Shelton,WA 98584> 360-427-9670, Ext. 603> barbarr@co.mason.wa.us> I'm is proud to present Cause Effect,a series about real people making a difference. htto://im.Iive.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text Cause Effect Jerry McAlpine January 27,2006 Page 2 ` My letter to you regarding the Browns' tenancy addresses the statutory background relevant to these issues. Mr. Napper hopes and believes we can arrive at a mutually acceptable solution without court action. Like the Browns' tenancy, and for the same reasons, Mr. Napper' tenancy falls under the Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act. The long term tenancy the Browns were able to secure in Lewis County includes a lot for Mr.Napper. However, they cannot occupy the spaces until September 2006. Mr. Napper proposes that he stay in Robin Hood Village under the current terms of his tenancy (Space rent of $325/month including utilities, occupancy of Mr. Napper and Zack, and one dog, which is actually one of the dogs listed under the Brown tenancy which apparently spends time at both units) through August 31, 2006. Although this may not be an ideal solution for anyone (you would like Mr. Napper out sooner; he planned to stay permanently), it is a good middle ground. Mr. Napper consistently pays his rent on time and will continue to abide by park rules. Given his strong legal right to continued tenancy through at least August 2006,his need for accommodation due to serious medical issues, and the lack of any real loss to the park if he stays,this seems to be an imminently reasonable compromise. Will you please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this offer so we can finalize the terms in writing?Thank you. Sincerely, NORTHWEST JUSTICE PROJECT Meagan J. M cKenzie Attorney at Law MJM:ch cc: Steve Napper FKell McAboy- RE: possible forest practice violation _- Page 1 From: "mereth" <mereth@skokomish.org> To: "'mereth"' <mereth@skokomish.org>, "'Keith Dublanica"'<kdublanica@skokomish.org>, "'Jack Turner"' <jturner@skokomish.org>, "'Jeff Heinis"' <jheinis@skokomish.org>, "'Jim Huinker"' <jhuinker@skokomish.org>, "'Lyman Bullchild"' <Iyman@skokomish.org>, <tstrong@skokomish.org> Date: 4/18/2006 12:34:12 PM Subject: RE: possible forest practice violation All, We went out to the violation on Big Bend Creek behind the liquor store, but didn't trespass. It looks like they have left a narrow single tree buffer but removed the majority of it. Most of the trees should have been protected by the county Critical Area Ordinance, which is 150 '. The timber is still on the ground but there's a loader on site so it might be removed soon. The stumps are still there but they have a cat, excavator and dump truck there so they may be planning on stumping and grading the area as well. We spoke to the dump truck driver at the site who was going to haul away some of the slash we think (he was not involved with any of the clearing). He told us that the owner told them that he "had a permit and but it took a while to get it". We told him it didn't look like they met the buffer setback. He said 4 to 6 were danger trees. We told him there are provisions (although weak) in the county rules to identify and document the danger trees before they are harvested and that most of the trees look like they would fall within the buffer. I called Kell McAboy(Mason County Planner)who is also receiving this email and recommended that a STOP WORK ORDER be issued so that no timber is removed from the site until the situation can be further assessed. I believe in this instance since the county took over forest practices regulatory responsibilities from DNR in areas converting to another use or within Urban Growth Areas (UGA's), that they are primarily the ones to enforce this. Also the timber volume appears to exceed commercial quantities (5000 board ft.)and looks to be of good quality. Perhaps the State Department of Revenue who receives timber tax monies should be involved. The state loses money on illegal timber harvests. I know one of the Revenue officers and will give him a call. Kell, for you I'm including below a recent email from a Skokomish DNR staff that was just sent to me: Could you also forward this email to Michael MacSems I left a voice mail with him as well. I talked with an employee at Robin Hood about a month ago who informed me that the land owner arrogantly told him had a lot of money and could do what ever he wanted on his land. This was in reference to the new parking lot but the employee alluded there may be more"development" and he was concerned about the creek. Not sure if this is the same person but sounds IV c !v C, Y Y Q w�-d ed I_ fart s p + u� f h•�% �, w ,+ h �� c Ai-ec+ Y1i► % G f� UE/�1.e �'1d �wnin5 <_vtS V R-,- Wt•e.d JU crth h ai F C F �111y�1, ���. h���i .l,.77 1(1 izsl 6 to 3o r�C-0.ri tkS S 7- co � O ,, ela HE*t 1� N �a 14 o • r • .. R w 1 � 1 � "1� � � '• , f•\j'�'4� , 1 C 1 � 1 •1 � 0 1 \ ' _ It A \ 1 b 74 'All 1 w ' 0 S M. S C • Jo �/