Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

November 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin residences, the Ordinance also prohibited the expansion or extension \'~. of such non-conforming uses. Since the Coxes' replacement mobile ) home was larger than the original mobile home, it was not permitted under the Ordinance. The Coxes had argued that the Ordinance's prohibition on the ex- pansion or extension of nonconforming mobile homes did not pro- hibit the expansion of the square footage of the nonconforming home. Rather, they contended, it only prohibited the' extension of the non- conforming use "to an area of land greater than the existing lot." The court rejected the Coxes' argument. The Ordinance, emphasized the court, did not simply refer to the extension of a "non-conforming use"; it specifically referred to improvement, replacement and expansion of "non-conforming residences." , See also: Henry v. Cherokee County, 290 Ga. App. 355, 659 S.E.2d 393(2008), cert. denied, (June 16, 2008). Case Note: The Coxes had also argued that the city. was estopped from enforcing the Ordinance against them because the city clerk had issued them a permit for a "manufactured/modular" home prior to 'their purchase of the new home. The court disagreed. It held that despite the issuance of the permit, the city was not es- ,----, topped from enforcing the Ordinance. While. the permit was valid ( ) as to a modular home, it was invalid as to a manufactured home since the Ordinance prohibited the Coxes from placing a manufac- tured home on their property "unless they were simply replacing the old home." Also, as the court had concluded, "the new, larger home could not be a replacement of the old home under the [Or- dinance.]" Furthermore, the city clerk's issuance of the permit was 'unauthorized since she had neither: the authority to waive any of . the conditions bf the Ordinance; or the authority to issue a permit that violated any of those conditions. -) 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 40