In a recent government meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding a proposed zoning change for a property owned by Sherman Properties, LLC, from single-family to multi-residential use for a mobile home park. The discussion highlighted various legal and procedural issues surrounding the application, particularly the lack of compliance with existing zoning laws and the implications for the surrounding community.

Key points of contention included the validity of the easement and deed associated with the property, which were found to contain errors and inconsistencies. It was noted that the property in question does not have adequate access to a county road, a requirement for the proposed zoning change. Additionally, the application failed to address essential utilities, raising questions about the feasibility of the development.

Residents expressed their concerns about the potential impact of the rezoning on property values and community safety. One resident pointed out that the proposed site does not meet the minimum five-acre requirement for a mobile home park, as it is under four acres. Furthermore, there were allegations of improper notification regarding the zoning application, with several incorrect addresses listed in the notice sent to residents.

The meeting also revealed that the property had not been assessed as a residential parcel for over a decade, indicating a lack of compliance with zoning and building codes. Residents argued that allowing the rezoning could set a precedent for further developments that might undermine the established zoning regulations designed to protect residential areas.

In response, the owner of Sherman Properties defended the application, stating that the property had previously hosted mobile homes and that the necessary utilities were in place. However, officials reiterated that any structures removed for more than six months lose their grandfathered status, complicating the case for additional mobile homes on the site.

The board concluded the public hearing without making a final decision, indicating that the matter would require further review to ensure compliance with zoning laws and the comprehensive plan. The outcome of this proposal remains uncertain, as it will ultimately be forwarded to the county commissioners for a final ruling.