Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() <br /> <br />(~) <br /> <br />(~i <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />November 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 21 <br /> <br />Nonconforming Uses~Ordinance permits <br />replacement of existing nonconforming <br />mobile homes <br /> <br />City claims landowners' replacement of mobile home with <br />much larger mobile home violates Ordinance <br /> <br />Citation: Cox v. City of Sasser, 2009 WL 3068776 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) <br /> <br />GEORGIA (09/28/09)-A 2002 city zoning ordinance amend- <br />ment (the "Ordinance") barred mobile homes or manufactured homes <br />on properties in certain residential districts. The Ordinance allowed <br />"needed routine improvements," including "replacement" of "non- <br />conforming" mobile homes or manufactured homes. <br />Since 1990, David and Marian Cox had a mobile home on their <br />property in the city. The Coxes' mobile home was a permitted noncon- <br />forming use. <br />In 2006, the Coxes replaced the existing 660 square foot noncon- <br />forming mobile home with what they characterized as a 1,980 square <br />foot "modular home. ". , <br />Thereafter, the city brought a legal action against the Coxes. The <br />city alleged that the Coxes were in violation of the Ordinance. <br />The Coxes maintained that their replacement home was a "modular <br />home," which was permitted in their residential district. Alternatively, <br />they argued that if their hew home was a "mobile home," it was a "re- <br />placement" of their prior mobile home and was therefore authorized <br />by the Ordinance. . <br />The city and the Coxes filed cross-motions for summary judgment. <br />Each asked the court to find that there were no material issues of fact <br />in dispute and to find in their favor on the law alone. The trial court <br />entered summary judgment in favor of the city. <br />The Coxes appealed. . <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of Georgia found that the replacement home <br />was a nonconforming mobile home and not a permitted modular <br />home, as the Coxes had alleged. The receipt for the new home indicat- <br />ed that it was a "mobile home." Notarized documents from the coun- <br />ty's tax commissioner and the county's tax appraiser confirmed that <br />the new home was a "manufactured home" (defined under the Ordi- <br />nance synonymously with "mobile hO!lle"). Moreover, the Coxes failed <br />to produce any evidence that their new home was a "modular" home. <br />The court also held that the Coxes new mobile home was not a <br />permitted "replacement" of their prior mobile home. While the Or- <br />dinance allowed improvements and replacement of nonconforming <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />39 <br />