To
the Editor:
Thank you for
keeping us apprised
of the dispute
between Ms. Barnes
and the appeals
board of St. Mary's
County.
Mrs. Barnes wants to
replace her older,
small, mobile home
(house trailer) with
a
larger, more modern
and safer unit; a
doublewide.
Apparently, the
zoning board will
not
allow that and the
appeals board is in
agreement with their
decision. The new
dwelling
Ms. Barnes wishes to
have placed on her
acre of land is much
safer than the
present
structure. Housing
and Development
(HUD) safety codes
went into effect in
1976. Ms.
Barnes 'house
trailer' was built
in about 1975.
An apparent
objection for dis-allowing
the newer, larger,
safer manufactured
dwelling
Ms. Barnes wants to
put on her land is
that it is too large
for the lot. She
would be
allowed to have a
modular house larger
than the doublewide.
What is the
reasoning for
that?
Ms. Barnes' property
is across the road
from a well
maintained
neighborhood. I
wonder
how many of the
houses were built
prior to 1975.
How
many are larger than the 980
sq ft of Ms. Barnes' house?
How
many sit on acre lots?
I
do not know Ms.
Barnes but it seems
many in this county
could learn some
valuable
lessons from her;
live within your
means, keep your
good credit rating
intact, and
save, save, save.
Admirable traits and
wise goals to
pursue. So why is
that not working
in her favor?
I'm having
considerable trouble
trying to understand
why Ms. Barnes is
being treated in
such a manner.
I,
and many others,
would be most
appreciative if
someone from zoning,
codes, appeals, etc.
would please give
some clarification
in this newspaper.
Does
someone want her
acre of road
frontage land? Are
they hoping she will
be forced to sell?
Would the county
collect more taxes
if she built a
modular unit instead
of a
manufactured
doublewide? As I
grow older and my
income diminishes
because of rising
prices and taxes,
will I have to face
similar obstacles if
I try to
improve/upgrade my
dwelling?
Frightening thought,
isn't it?
J. Vass
Mechanicsville
|
