Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

April 25, 2008 I Volume 21 NO.8 ulations that placed it in residential zones where mobile homes were not permitted. In October 2003, at the request of the Park's owners, the town's zoning board of appeals (the board) issued a blanket variance, allow- ing the future replacement of older mobile homes with newer mobile homes within the Park. The blanket variance was issued without noti- fying abutting property owners and without publishing notice of that decision in a newspaper. The zoning enforcement officer issued zoning permits for a total of eleven mobile home replacements at the Park. James Wiltzius owned residential property, which abutted one of the three parcel::; occupied by the Park. After discovering that the board had issued the blanket variance, Wiltzius ultimately brought three separate zoning appeals against the town and the Park owners (hereinafter, collectively "the town"). Wiltzius challenged various zon- ing permits and certificates of zoning compliance issued by the town in connection with the replacement of mobile homes in the Park. On Wiltzius' appeal, the board overturned the decision to issue five of the permits, finding they were issued based on a variance that had been declared void due to a lack of proper public notification. The board upheld the remaining six permits, finding at least four of them were not timely challenged by Wiltzius. . Wiltzius appealed to the superior court. The court consolidated the three cases, and heard them all together. The court determined that Wiltzius' appeals from the issuance of nine of the zoning permits were not timely. The court found that Wiltzius' appeal from the issu- ance of the certificates for zoning for four of the mobile homes were invalid and without merit. The court did find Wiltzius' appeals from the issuance of two of the zoning permits were timely. The court fur- ther found that the town's zoning regulations did not permit enlarge- ments of nonconforming uses. The court concluded that the replace- ment of older mobile homes with larger mobile homes was an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use under the town's zoning regula- tions. The court found for Wiltzius with respect to two of the per- mits, and ordered the board void those two permits. Wiltzius and the town appealed on issues involving six of the mo- bile homes. DECISION: On Wutzius' appeal: reversed in part and remanded. On. the town's appeal: affirmed. After deciding for Wiltzius on mootness and timing issues, the court finally concluded that the replacement of older mobile homes with newer models with increased square footage was an illegal ex- pansion of a nonconforming use under the town's zoning regulations. 7 37