Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 2 -- September 25, 1998 Z.B. Exclusionary Zoning- Association says roof-pitch requirements are unconstitutional Citation: Georgia Manufactured Housing Association Inc. v. Spalding County, Ga., lIth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-8207 (]998) The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Spalding County (Ga.) amended its zoning ordinance'to establish different classes of manufactured housing. "Class A" manufactured homes were those that met HUD standards for manufactured housing and that satisfied various additional criteria, including that the roof pitch be at least 4:12. Class A homes also had to be wider than 16 feet, and had to be finished with shingles and siding common to residential construction. "Class B" manufactured homes were those that met HUD standards but not the additional criteria. The ordinance allowed Class A homes in any residential district as a matter of right. Class B homes were allowed only as special exceptions. The result of the ordinance was that most Class B homes were placed in planned manufac- tured home communities. .The Georgia Manufactured Housing Association Inc. sued the county, claiming the ordinance violated its members' due process and equal protection rights. The association also claimed the ordinance was invalid because the fed- eral National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 preempted it. Under the Act, no state or local authority can establish or enforce any construction or safety .standards concerning manufactured homes if the standards aren't identical to the federal standards. The court found the 4:12 roof-pitch requirement was unconstitutional. It also found the ordinance was preempted by the federal standards because the 4:12 requirement interfered with the Act's construction and safety requirements and couldn't be enforced without impairing the federal regulations. The court held a trial on damages, and awarded the association $28,580 in damages and more than $236,000 in attorneys' fees. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The 4:12 roof-pitch requirement wasn't unconstitutional, and the federal statute didn't preempt the ordinance. The 4:12 requirement was rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, so it didn't violate due process or equal protection standards. In creat- ing the requirement, the county could have been pursuing the goal of "aesthetic compatibility," seeking to reduce friction between the appearance of site-built and manufactured homes by requiring manufactured homes to look more like site-built homes. This was a legitimate government purpose. It was reasonable for the county to believe the 4:12 requirement would help achieve compatibility among houses in residential districts. Although the 4:12 thresh- old might seem no more appropriate than 3:12 or 5:12, the county had the