Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 1 <br />not similarly situated at all; they either fell within an exception or were <br />within compliance with the J-2 zoning classification. <br />The court concluded that since Rocky Point could not meet the zoning <br />requirements and did not have a vested right, Rocky Point failed to meet <br />the threshold requirement of entitlement as of right, and the special facts <br />exception was inapplicable to the case. <br />See also: Pokoik v. Silsdorf 40 N.Y.2d 769, 390 N.Y.S.2d 49, 358 <br />N.E.2d 874 (1976). <br />See also: Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville <br />Centre, 64 N.Y.2d 921, 488 N.Y..S.2d 629, 477 N.E.2d 1083 (1985). <br />Nonconforming Uses/Validity of <br />Zoning Regulations —Ordinance <br />provides that absence of <br />nonconforming mobile home is <br />legal abandonment of <br />nonconforming use <br />Mobile home park owners challenge ordinance <br />as arbitrary and unconstitutional <br />Citation: Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Village of Lodi, 2013- <br />Ohio-4973, 2013 WL 6021470 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Medina County <br />2013) <br />OHIO (11/12/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether an <br />ordinance; which provided that the absence or removal of nonconfoiniing <br />mobile hoines for a period of six months or more was legal abandonment <br />of the nonconforming use, was unconstitutional as a violation of substan- <br />tive due process. <br />The Background/Facts: Sunset Estate Properties, LLC ("Sunset") and <br />Meadowview Village, Inc. ("Meadowview") each owned a parcel of land <br />in the Village of Lodi, Ohio (the "Village") on which each operated a <br />mobile home park. Both of the properties were zoned R-2 for residential <br />use. Both mobile home parks constituted authorized nonconforming uses <br />of the properties. Each park was licensed for 33 (Sunset) and 44 (Meadow - <br />view) mobile home lots or pads, respectively. Twenty-one of Sunset's 33 <br />mobile home lots and 17 of Meadowview's 44 lots had been vacant for <br />more than six months. The Village refused to reactivate utilities for those <br />lots for the asserted reason that the nonconforming use of those particular <br />lots had been abandoned pursuant to the terns of the local zoning code. <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters <br />