Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 4 -- December 24, 2003 Z.B. 144 property to a manufactured home subdivision or park district, area voters over- turned the decision in a referendum. Coach Light sued, arguing the local ordinance in fact allowed manufac- tured home parks in ag-ricultural-residential districts. The court disageed, finding it only allowed individual manufactured homes. Coach Light appealed, arguing the ordinance violated constitutional law: DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance did not allow manufactured home parks and was not uncon- stitutional. The ordinance stated ~'Mobile homes are permitted in Mobile Home Parks. They shall be perm/tied in Mobile Home Subdivision and Residential-Agricul- tural Districts." Although Coach Light claimed "they" referred to "mobile home parks," it was clear "they" referred to individual manufactured homes. Under the ordinance, "mobile home parks" were composed of more than two home sites owned and managed by a licensed lessor, while "mobile home subdivisions" were composed of individually platted lots sold as private home sites. If "they" referred to "mobile home parks," the distinction between "mo- bile home parks" and "mobile home subdivisions" was destroyed. At the beginning of the litigation, no land with/n the township was desig- nated as a manufactured home subdivision district. A zoning ordinance could not totally exclude a land use where there was a demonstrated need, the use was appropriate, and the use was lawful. The township modified the ordinance to allow'a manufactured home com- munity on a 40-acre parcel Coach Light didn't own. The township succeeded in repairing the ordinance while also respecting its voters' decisions. Conse- quently, although Coach Light could not build such a community in its chosen location, it could not force the township to place such a community wherever the corporation wanted it. Citation: Lamotre Coach Light Corporation v. Township of Lamotre, Court of A?peals of Michigan, No. 240907 (2003). see also: MacDonaM Adverrising Co. v. Mclntyre, 536 X W. 2d 249 (1995). see al. ro: Talcott v. Midland, 387 N. W. 2d 845 (1985). Variance -- Small lot owner wants to place house close to road Proposed home would be almost 20feet closer than town requirements CONNECTICUT ( 10/21/03) -- DuBaldo requested a variance from the town's minimum floor area and setback requirements so he could construct a small single-family residence. He claimed the size and topography of his lot created an unusual hardship and prevented development. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Andover denied the applica- tion, stating the proposed home would be too close to the edge of the road and would therefore compromise safety and property values. DuBaldo's proposal placed the home within 26 feet of the edge of the pave- ment. and future widening of the road would probably put it within i 8 feet of