Commission upholds county finding that 5025 Emerson Road lost most of its mobile‑home park nonconforming use

The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners on Aug. 5 affirmed a Development Services ruling that removed most of the nonconforming mobile‑home entitlements for a property at 5025 Emerson Road.

Development Services Director Omar Pablo told the board staff’s administrative decision resulted from demolition permits and removals of six of nine mobile homes that had been on the 10‑acre parcel. County code requires replacement within 12 months to preserve a nonconforming unit; Pablo said demolition permits were issued in 2020 for most units and one earlier in 2018, and that the replacements were not completed in the required time. He said two of the remaining units represented impact‑fee credits and one had an impact fee paid, leaving three mobile‑home entitlements that could remain under the site’s current zoning.

Property owner Jason E. Morfitt and his attorney, Walter Sewell, told commissioners the parcel has been used as a mobile‑home park for decades and that they had relied on county correspondence in advance of purchase indicating the property’s nonconforming status. Morfitt and witnesses presented copies of older letters and utility records they said showed continuous use as a mobile‑home park. Pablo and planning staff conceded earlier correspondence had created confusion but said the code’s replacement rule was clear and had been applied.

After public comment and questioning, the board considered a motion to affirm the administrative official’s determination. Commissioner Champion moved to uphold the staff decision; Commissioner Lockup seconded. The board voted unanimously to affirm the administrative decision (motion carries, 5‑0), leaving three mobile‑home entitlements on the parcel tied to impact‑fee credits. Commissioner Champion and others urged the owner to pursue a more durable title solution — such as rezoning to a form of planned residential development — if the owner seeks long‑term vesting beyond the current entitlements.

What the vote means: The county’s ruling removes the majority of the grandfathered entitlements because the code’s 12‑month replacement rule was not met, while preserving the three units connected to impact‑fee credits. The owner may pursue administrative or legislative remedies — including a rezoning or planned‑development application — but the current nonconforming entitlements were not restored beyond the three remaining units.

Quotes: “If those 3 were demolished or had a permit to be demolished and then not replaced in the 1 year, they would also then be removed?” asked Commissioner Hamzler. “The 2 that have impacts, the credits would be in question,” Pablo replied.

Next steps: The owner and staff discussed the possibility of pursuing a planned development rezoning to secure longer‑term use rights. The board did not direct staff to take a specific enforcement action beyond affirming the administrative decision.