Zoning double standards

By Brad Hollerbach

I generally like standards.

For instance, I like knowing that when I pump a gallon of gas, I'm getting a gallon and not one ounce less. Or when I buy a foot-long sub sandwich, I don't have to whip out my tape measure to make sure that it's not really 10 inches.

And I generally like the city of Cape Girardeau zoning standards, provided that they are both enforced and applied to everyone in an equitable manner.

I don't care for double standards of any kind, but it appears to me that one currently exists with the selective enforcement of one part of the city's zoning regulations.

It was reported in the March 12 issue of the Southeast Missourian that the Cape Girardeau Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a proposal by city resident Alfred Farrar to put a Fleetwood manufactured home on his property on North Fountain Street.

Farrar, a retiree from Southeast Missouri State University, already lives at that location. He wants to replace his aging two-story bungalow with a nicer looking and more energy-efficient manufactured home installed over a full basement.

According to the article, P&Z commissioner Charlie Haubold said that approving the special-use permit for Farrar "would open a can of worms."

I guess the enforcement of this particular part of the city's zoning ordinance depends on who is fishing.

I base that observation on the fact that another manufactured home is already scheduled to be rolled into place north of downtown this coming weekend.

I'm referring to the Habitat for Humanity house that is currently being built in the university parking lot next to the SEMO Alumni Center on Broadway.

The exterior construction work on the Habitat house will be completed on the university's campus, and this weekend they are planning on hauling it to a site on North Main Street. This location is only a mile away from where Mr. Farrar would like to put his new home.

I don't see many differences between these two buildings.

Both would be or are being built off-site, not at their eventual addresses.

Both will have to be hauled to those eventual addresses.

Both would be permanently installed over basements at those eventual addresses.

The big difference I see is that the Farrar house would be built in an environmentally controlled manufacturing facility while the Habitat house is being assembled by an army of volunteers in a parking lot.

Actually, this matter of where these houses are built may be the key legal difference in the whole situation. The Cape Girardeau zoning ordinance defines a manufactured home as a "factory-built structure."

Really, it's a matter of semantics. Should the fact that one is built inside while the other is built outside really have any bearing on our zoning ordinances? I think not.

If anything, the Farrar house should be better built because it is built in a factory -- and I'm not saying that to disparage the quality of the workmanship by the Habitat for Humanity volunteers and their professional staff.

However, most manufactured homes like the one that Mr. Farrar wants to install on his property have to be extremely well-engineered and well-constructed to tolerate the rigors of being hauled hundreds of miles from the factory they are built in to the customer's location.

Could Habitat for Humanity have built their latest house on-site rather than two miles away?

Of course they could have, although I've driven by the location on North Main, and it is pretty small and parking for all of the volunteers would have been a problem. It would have been a tight fit. Assembling the shell of the house off-site is the only realistic way Habitat can possibly fulfill its ambitious two-week time frame with this particular build.

I personally believe in the Habitat for Humanity mission.

I've both made donations to and purchases from their ReStore retail operation located on North Middle Street. Part of my United Way donation goes to them. And last fall I contributed about a dozen truckloads of fill and topsoil to Habitat houses located here in Cape Girardeau.

But what I don't believe in are double standards.

And it appears to me that the P&Z commission is being selective in enforcing at least part of the city's zoning regulations.

Allowing Mr. Farrar to upgrade his residence may be "opening up a can of worms," but it should be allowed. It's only equitable.

Brad Hollerbach is the director of information technology at the Southeast Missourian and an semissourian.com blogger. bhollerbach@semissourian.com