County code verse a legal contract

[stilen621]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon.

Hello. Our new neighbor which has a house on the property adjacent to ours has applied to the county requesting an additional "Temporary Medical Hardship Dwelling" for her ailing father. We are all for allowing this because I have been in their situation regarding taking care of both of my parents. The problem is that while it is called a "Temporary Dwelling" it seems they can be anything but temporary. They only allow RV's/trailers or Manufactured homes to be used in these instances. The county code that the guy at the county provided me specifically states that the dwelling must be disconnected from all sewer, water, and electric within 90 days of the hardship ending (State code says the same) yet the same guy at the county says they will be allowed to leave the building after the father passes as long as the kitchen stove is removed (accessory building). All of the homes in the area are all stick built houses and this building is a manufactured home which will sit right in the middle of five other houses. These are all one acre lots.

The letter the county sends out to alert the surrounding properties of the proposed dwelling just states "Temporary Hardship dwelling" which is misleading along with the code that applies to it. Perhaps thats why most dont question whats being done, after all it's "temporary" correct? I have appealed the dwelling and found out the people will have to pay $5,000 to the county for a hearing. I am not heartless and dont want to add to the families issues so I have reached out to them to try to resolve this between us and not have them have to pay the county the $5,000 for the hearing.

Us and the neighbor have come to a mutual agreement that they would not keep the building there after the hardship is over if I withdraw my objection to the county which I would do if they keep their end of the deal. My question is that if we had an agreement drawn up, notarized, recorded etc could they come back later and say tough, "County Code outranks this agreement" and keep the building there or would our mutual agreement outrank county code and be legally binding ? Any help or direction is appreciated.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon.

Us and the neighbor have come to a mutual agreement that they would not keep the building there after the hardship is over if I withdraw my objection to the county which I would do if they keep their end of the deal. My question is that if we had an agreement drawn up, notarized, recorded etc could they come back later and say tough, "County Code outranks this agreement" and keep the building there or would our mutual agreement outrank county code and be legally binding ? Any help or direction is appreciated.

The contract should indeed be enforceable. First, you say the code itself is consistent with the agreement anyway. Second, even if the code would ALLOW the building to remain, the code doesn’t MANDATE that the building remain, so the contract would not be contrary to the law. They are allowed to take it down earlier than the code says they must take it down, and they are free to contract with someone else to take it down early.

 

[HRZ]

IT may be even more expensive to enforce the removal as per the contract if the adjacent owner balks unless of course the contract has provision that adjacent owner also pay any legal costs ...and is well crafted by your attorney.

Tough call ...around me the medical needs of older parents seem an all too convenient backdoor way for some to expand a dwelling and or convert it to two unit ....and local government is unlikely to expend resources over use of an accessory building ...except perhaps one check for kitchen removal.

Personally I think a well crafted by your paid lawyer contract now will be a stronger lever IF a lever is needed later.