Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 15, 1995 -- Page 7 The village also had a subdivision ordinance. The village's definition of a sub- division was similar to the county's but contained no reference to leasing. In May 1988, the Ruizes got approval from the state Environmental Improve- ment Division to install a waste water treatment system which would serve 251 mobile homes they planned to build and lease. The following month, they began construction, which included cutting roads an~t testing soil. They spent more than $50,000 on this work. Immediately after the work began, the county notified the Ruizes the park was a subdivision and, as such, required county approval. The county sued the Ruizes,iasking the court to declare that the mobile home plan would be a sub- division, subject to the ordinance. While the lawsuit was pending, the village annexed the Ruizes' parcel and told the Ruizes their development plans vio- lated tl-/e village's one-acre single-family zoning. The village also became a party tc/the county's lawsuit, arguing the Ruizes violated the village's zoning ordinance and that the. plan was a subdivision under the village's subdivision ordinance. The court ruled that the development was a subdivision under the county's ordinance, but not under the village's. Because the village had annexed the parcel, the court ruled, the county ordinance had become irrelevant. The village could not prohibit the proposed development because the Ruizes had a vested right to ~levelop the property at the time of the annexation. The village appealed. The~ Ruizes argued their plan would not be subdivision under either the county'S or the village's subdivision ordinance, so they did not need approval from either. They argued that even if the county's ordinance applied, the village's did not because it did not apply to tracts of land developed for lease. They also claimed the village could not apply its land use ordinances to their proposed develol~ment because they established a vested right to use the 'property as a mobile home park. DECISION: Reversed. The Ruizes' plan would be a subdivision under both the county's and the village'S ordinance, so the Ruizes had to get approval from both. They did not have a Vested right to build the mobile home park. The.proposed mobile home park would be a subdivision under both the county and village ordinances. The municipalities regulated the subdivisions to protect public health and safety by making sure they were carefully planned. Because the proposed mobile home park involved the division of land into lots, the. i concerns involved {n conventional housing subdivisions were equally applicable. Whether the individual mobile home lots were to be leased or sold was irrelevant. The~Ruizes did not have a vested right to continue development. To estab- lish a v~sted right, they had to show that they had approval for their develop- ment and acted in reliance on that approval. While the Ruizes did spend a large sum of money on development, the property was subject to the planning and platting jurisdiction of both the village and the county, so they had to get approval