Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 4 -i-- March 15, 1996 Z.B. Mobile l~Iome- Owner Says Ordinance Unconstitutionally Excludes All Mobile ~ome Parks Uppdr Salford Township v. Collins, 669 A.2d 335 (Pennsyh,ania) J995 Collins owned 190 acres of undeveloped land in a residential-agricultural zone of Upper Salford Township, Pa. He held the land in two separate tracts, and wan!ed to develop them into two mobile home parks. Between the two parks, th~ere would be 1,108 units, some convenience stores, and a mobile home salts facility. The tpwnsh~p s zoning ordinance did not expressly allow mobile home parks, bui. did not specifically exclude them from all zones either. In the dis- trict containing Collins' land, single-family homes on lots of at least two acres were allowed, but not mobile home parks. ? Becatlse the ordinance did not list mobile home parks as permitted uses, Collins a~ked the township's Board of Supervisors to find the ordinance uncon- stitutiona!ly excluded all mobile home parks. The township said the ordi- nance all~wed mobile home parks in limited industrial and light limited industrialI' ' ~districts, even though the parks were not specifically listed as per- mitted uses in those zones. The t~wnship said the ordinance allowed several nonindustrial uses in [ limited irt~dustrial districts, including agricultural, commercial, and residen- tial uses. ~I'he ordinance stated any uses not specifically excluded from those districts Were permitted as long as they complied with limitations on, among other things, smoke emissions, odors, noise, bright lights, and water pollu- tion. An {xpert for the township said mobile home parks could comply with those limitations. The expert aIso said. mobile home parks would have no trouble meeting the district's setback and lot size requirements. For light limited industrial districts, the ordinance allowed as conditional uses "[a]~iy uses not specifically permitted by Ia specific section] or specifi- cally prohibited by [other specific sections]." The listed permitted uses included some resi~tential and commercial uses. Mobile home parks were not specifi- cally allowed or forbidden. The board upheld the ordinance as constitutional. It agreed with the town- ship that the ordinance allowed mobile home parks in limited industrial and light limit~ed industrial districts. Collins appealed, and the trial court affirmed the board's decision. Collins~ appealed again. The appeals court reversed, saying the ordinance did not expressly designate mobile home parks as a permitted use. The court concluded ithe township completely excluded mobile home parks without rea- son, so th~ ordinance was unconstitutional. The township appealed to the state's highest court. DECISION: Reversed. The appeals court improperly overturned the trial court's decision to affirm the board's~ findings. The board properly found the ordinance allowed mobile