Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 2 December 10, 1998 Z.B. Code Violation -- Court refuses to issue order stopping zoning violation Citation: City of Europa v. Hodges, Supreme Court of Mississippi, No 97- CA-OI O30-SCT (1998) The city of Europa, Miss., had a zoning ordinance that prohibited.placing, maintaining, or using mobile homes outside of mobile home parks. The pen- alty for violating the ordinance was a fine of $25 to $100 per day. Hodges reportedly owned a mobile home within the city limits but not within a mobile home park. His daughter and grand.children lived in the mobile home. Hodges claimed he sought a variance directly from the mayor but that the mayor denied his request. Hodges n. ever reques~ted a variance from the city board. In 1995, the city attorney wrote Hodges a letter asking him to move the mobile home within 30 days. Hodges didn't comply. : In 1997, the city asked a court to order Hodges to comply with the zoning (' rdinance. The city stated the purpo, se of the ordinance was to "prevent health and safety hazards and to promote the economical and orderly development of land." At trial, Hodg~s didn't deny he violated the ordinance.' His onl''y argument was that the city unfairly enforced the ordinance against him because it had nev~r"enforced th~'ordinan'ce against anyone else. The court refused the city's requested order, finding there was no proof Hodges' mobile home constituted a health or safety hazard. The court dis- missed the case. : The city 'appealed tO MiSs'issSppi's highest court. It argued the' lower court should have issued the requested order because the evidence showed Hodges was in willful violation of the zoning ordinance. DECISION: Reversed; order granted. The lower court should have ordered Hodge~ to comply with the zoning ordinance. In an earlier case, the Mississippi Supreme Court held municipalities had the fight to request court orders to stop zoning violations. The remedy for zon- ing violations wasn't limited to the pen.alties listed in the ordinance. In addi- tion, a state statute allowed local ~'uthorities to "institute any appropriate action or proceedings" to prevent anyone from occupying a structure that was ille- gally built or repaired. The city's failure to enforce the ordinance in the past didn't prevent it from now enforcing the ordinance. Because Hodges was in violation of the ordi- nance, the lower court should have granted the city's request and ordered Hodges to comply. see also: City of Hattiesburg ~: L & A Contracting C'o., 159 So.2d 74 (1963). see also: Johnson v. Hinds County, 524 So.2d 947 (1988).