Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2014 I Volume 8 i Issue 19 DECISION: Judgment of circuit court reversed and rendered. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi agreed with CMHC that it had a vested right to continue the nonconfoiining mobile home park use of the property. The court explained that the right to continue a nonconforming use is not a personal right but one that runs with the land, which "may not be terminated or destroyed by [a] change of ownership of property alone." The court also held that CMHC's interpretation of the City's ordinance was the "reasonable interpretation," construing the nonconforming use to relate to the mobile -home park as a whole. "As long as the [P]ark was operated as [a mobile home park] without expansion, it was a permitted use," said the court. Nevertheless, the court had to determine whether the City's interpretation of the ordinance —that the nonconforming use must be considered on a lot -by -lot or pad -by -pad basis —was a permissible one. The court concluded that the City's resolution interpreting the ordinance to mean that the nonconforming use must be considered on a lot -by -lot basis was not a permissible interpretation, but rather was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal, In so holding, the court noted that there was "no principled basis to distinguish lots in a mobile -home park from apartments in an apartment complex, storage -rental units in a self -storage -rental business, or parking spaces in a parking garage." If such an interpretation were allowed, "[a]ny such structure in a nonconforming -use context could be faced with a municipali- ty's demand that apartments, storage units, or parking spaces not be refilled as tenants move out." The court found that such an interpretation reflected "a lack of understanding for the fundamental nature of things and a disregard for the sur- rounding facts and settled controlling principles." The court also found that it "deprive[d] the property owner of his constitutional right to enjoy his property." On that point, CMHC had argued that the City's resolution allowed it to take CMHC's property "lot by lot," entitling CMHC to compensation and damages. Having found the resolution invalid, the court had concluded that it was unenforceable against CMHC. Thus it found the issue of whether a contrary find- ing might entitle CMHC to some compensation to be moot. See also: Jones v. Lutken, 62 So. 3d 455 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). Proceedin * s--After Ianowner brings suit, town says she failed to first exhaust her administrative remedies Landowner argues she was excused from exhausting such remedies because such efforts would have been inadequate or futile Citation: Holt v. Town of Stonington, 2014 WL 4251291 (2d Cir. 2014) The Second Circuit has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. SECOND CIRCUIT (CONNECTICUT) (08/29/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a property owner failed to exhaust her available administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court, thus preventing her claim for judicial relief in a zoning dispute. It also addressed whether a property owner's ©2014 Thomson Reuters 9