Laserfiche WebLink
Z~B.. ..... March 15,~ 1995 -- Page 7 <br /> <br />on 110 <br />Pa. It a <br />ordinan, <br /> <br />cres of land in a medium-density residential zone of Forks Township, <br />~lied for an amendment to the zoning ordinance, claiming the existing <br />e unconstitutionally barred mobile home parks. <br /> <br /> The itownship's Board of Supervisors rejected Hornstein's request...The board <br /> stated tlSat the township's Planned Residential Developments (PRD) Ordinance <br /> permitted mobile home parks in reMdential districts,- ' <br /> Hot'stein appealed, and the court affirmed. It found that the zoning ordi- <br /> nance big itself did: not permit mobile home parks;, but: the PRD Ordinance <br /> allowed!them in all the. town's residential districts; The. court also rejected <br /> Hornste!n's argument that the zoning ordinance repealed the PRD ordinance <br /> when it !wag enacted. More than 35 percent of the t'ownship's land could be <br />developi~d into mobile home parks'. ' · · '...'-. <br /> ~ . <br />Hot,stein appealed again,., claiming the new zoning ordinance replaced the <br />older P~D ordinance.arid that the ordinances did not'allow mobile home parks. <br />DECISIDN: Affirmed. "'...... · -. : .: .' <br />-. The lold 'PRD ordinance was 'not. repealed by the new zoning ordinance. <br />The PRo ordinance was not part of the old zoning ordinance, it was separate. <br /> The [ownship~s overall zoning scheme allowed mobile home developments <br />as permitted uses in residential districts covering 35 percent Of township land. <br />Reading.together the definitions of"~nobile home" and ,single-family detached <br />dwel'lin~," the ordinances explicitly allowed 'for. mobile home developments~ <br /> <br />Mobile !tome Can a Sales Business Get a Variance Based on Loss of Future <br />Income? · <br /> Ex ~arte Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Mobile, ... ~ .. <br />636 ~o. 2d 415 .(Alabama) 1994. ,. .. <br />'".Williams owned the Sea Pines residential mobile home park, lodated in a <br />multifar~ily residential district in Mobile, Ala. Because of a stagnant demand <br />for mobile home rental lots, he began commercial sales of new mobile homes <br />at the p~rk in early 1991.- . " '- .~. ~ . . · . <br /> .AccC~rding to Mobile's zoning plan, the city permitted mobile home sales <br />in an arda zoned for commercial use, but' not in a multifami!y residential zone. <br />The city!cite, d Williams for violatin~ the zoning law,. ' <br /> · Williams applied to the Mobile!Zoning Board for a variance to allow him <br />to contin ~e.his sales business. He argued that he became financially successful <br />only afte 'he began.selling mobile h,'omes in 1991. Without the sales operation, <br />he clairnsd that'he would have to 'file for bankruptcy. He also claimed that <br />because >f the layout of the utility s~tstems on the property, it could not beused <br />for.anyttting other than. a mobile home park. .. <br /> The ~oning board denied the application because the threat of bankruptcy <br />or economic hardship did not create enough justification to grant a use vari- <br />ance fro? a zoning ordinance. The'board noted Williams owned nearby prop- <br />erty in a~ area zoned to allow mobile home sales and he could easily move his <br />sales buliness there. Williams appealed. The lower court reversed. The board <br /> <br /> <br />