Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin he could keep two mobile homes on the property unless the town objected, in which case the trailers would have to be removed. Al- legedly, Hodgell did not live on the property, but used it to store the trailers and several cars in various states of disrepair. The landlord reportedly told Hodgell that he "didn't want so many cars there," but "[t]hat [was] as far as [the conversation about cars] went." Hodgell said that he would begin removing the vehicles, but, eventually, there were over 50 unlicensed vehicles on the prop- erty. Many of the cars had rusted bottoms, junk inside them, and plant overgrowth around them. At some point, a town inspector noticed the cars from the road and went closer to investigate. The official found "scores of stacked tires and a twenty-five-or thirty-foot trailer heaped with rusted car parts and miscellaneous junk" on the property. The town had or- dinances forbidding: properties being used as junkyards or salvage yards without a permit; the accumulation of unlicensed junk ve- hicles; and locating mobile homes outside of an authorized trailer park, except by permit. The property was not an authorized trailer park and the town had issued no mobile home, junkyard or salvage yard permit. Because of these visible violations, the town issued citations against Hodgell. Mer a trial, the court found Hodgell guilty of ac- cumulating unlicensed or junked vehicles on the property and park- ing a house trailer outside a licensed trailer park. The court ordered Hodgell to either remove all inoperable vehicles and mobile homes from the premises, with fines for each day beyond the ordered date, or pay the town funds received for the items' scrap value. In addition, the court prohibited Hodgell from bringing any more vehicles or mobile homes on to the property. Hodgell did not remove the items by the required date; instead, he filed a request in court that would effectively postpone the require- ment that he remove the vehicles and equipment. Hodgell argued that the request should be granted because the trial court had not addressed a similar request he made during the trial. The court de- nied Hodgell's request, and he appealed. Decision: Affirmed. Hodgell contended that the ordinances in question violated his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizures and his Ninth Amendment right to possess property that was "outside mainstream interests and [did] not threaten the public interest or safety." 8 44 '-""'"\ J ,(-) ) ! i I I \ I I i I I' i I II I, il II II I II I, II Ii il ;1 II I' iI " fi Ii 'I Ii II II 'I II Ii I' IIc ~ I