Laserfiche WebLink
April 25, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin <br />Validity of Zoning Regulation— <br />Zoning ordinance provides that <br />absence of nonconforming mobile <br />homes for period of time constitutes <br />discontinuance of. nonconforming <br />use <br />Mobile home park owners challenge <br />ordinance as unconstitutional <br />Citation: State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Lodi, 2015 - <br />Ohio -790, 2015 WL 1035632 (Ohio 2015) <br />OHIO (03/10/15) This case addressed the issue of whether a provi- <br />sion of a municipal zoning ordinance, which provided that the absence <br />or removal of nonconforming mobile homes from property for a period <br />of six months or more constituted discontinuance or abandonment of <br />the nonconforming use from the time of absence or removal, was <br />unconstitutional. <br />The Background/Facts: Sunset Properties, L.L.C. and Meadow - <br />view Village, Inc. (collectively, the "Park Owners") each owned prop- <br />erty in the village of Lodi, Ohio (the "Village"). On their property, the <br />Park Owners operated licensed manufactured -home parks ("mobile <br />home parks"). Both properties were in areas zoned as R-2 Districts. <br />R-2 Districts did not peimit mobile home parks. Because the Park Own- <br />ers' mobile home parks existed prior to the passage of the ordinance <br />creating the R-2 Districts, the mobile home parks were legal noncon- <br />foiming uses under state law, R.C. 713.15. <br />In 1987, the Village passed an ordinance enacting Lodi Zoning Code <br />1280.05(a) (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance addressed discontinua- <br />tion or abandonment of nonconforming uses. In general, the Ordinance <br />provided that when a nonconfolliing use had been discontinued for six <br />months, that discontinuance was conclusive evidence of the intention <br />to legally abandon the nonconforming use. The final sentence of the <br />Ordinance was specific to mobile homes. That sentence provided that <br />the absence or removal of a mobile home from its lot constituted dis- <br />continuance from the time of removal. In reliance on that sentence, <br />when a tenant left one of the Park Owners' mobile home park lots and <br />the lot was vacant for longer than six months, the Village refused to <br />6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />