Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The town had argued that the Park itself, and not .the individual mobile home, was the nonconformity. As such, the town had argued, the replacement of anyone mobile home could not be an expansion of a nonconforming use unless the expansion: altered the unit count; increased the acreage of the Park; exceeded the maximum building height in the zone; or violated setback requirements. The court dis- agreed. The court found that the Park was a nonconforming use and the individual mobile homes were nonconforming structures under the town's regulations. The town's zoning regulations defined a non- conforming use as a nonconforming "use of land or a structure." A structure was defined as "anything constructed or erected, includ- ing a building, the use of which requires location on or under the ground...." The court found that a mobile home was clearly a struc- ture, as defined in the regulations, and could thus be a nonconform- ing use. Because the Park validly existed at the time of the adoption of zoning in the town, the mobile homes and the Park were noncon- forming uses. The court said that as nonconforming uses, the Park's and mobile homes' uses were permitted to continue but not to increase. The regu- lations expressly prohibited an expansion of the nonconforming use. The court rejected the town's argument that, even if the mobile homes themselves were nonconforming, the zoning regulations per- mitted their replacement because they permitted alteration or recon- struction of a nonconforming structure if "required by law." The town argued that the upgrades of the mobile home units were done to' comply with the national building code for mobile manufactured homes, which required newer units be wider and longer to be in com- pliance with the law. The court said the owners were not "required by law" to replace any of the older mobile homes in the Park; the decision to do so was voluntary. The court also rejected the toWn's argument that disallowing the mobile home replacements would run contrary to public policy. The state legislature had recently enacted an amendment to the state's mobile home statute that provided that the replacement of a mobile home by a new mobile home did not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use. Having already found that statute did not apply retroactively to the permits and certificates at issue, the court found no legislation applied to protect, on a public policy basis, those per- mits and certificates. See also: Raymond v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Norwalk, 76 Conn. App. 222, 820 A.2d 275 (2003); Nichols v. Salem Subway Restaurant, 98 Conn. App. 837,912 A.2d 1037 (2006) 8 38