Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 -- June 10, 2004 <br /> <br />Z.g. <br /> <br /> not subsequently blame the incompleteness of the application or other proce- <br /> dural deficiencies. <br /> see also: Pala~olo v. Rhode Ix&md, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). <br /> see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coao'ral Co~ncil, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). <br /> <br /> Subdivision -- Owner claims mobile home park is subdivision <br /> <br />Doing so avoids development restrictions <br /> Citation: Jones v. Davis, Court of Appeals of lVorth Carolina, No. COA05-594 <br /> (2004) <br />NORTH CAROLINA (4/20/04) ' Davis wanted to develop a mobile home <br />park on a portion of his property. Davis initially sought planning board ap- <br />proval, but, after changing his plans, he sought approval for a subdivision <br />under the Subdivision Ordinance. Under this ordinance, a subdivision was <br />land divided for the purpose of sale or building development. <br /> Davis wanted to avoid the Surry County Manufactured Home and Manu- <br />factured Home Park Ordinance. Under this ordinance, Davis would be required <br />to plant a tree screen and undertake road maintenance. With a subdivision, no <br />tree screen was required, and road maintenance could be turned over to the <br />state or a homeowners association. <br /> Davis received approval for his subdivision and began renting lots' and <br />allowing tenants to place mobile homes on the property. <br />Neighboring property owners sued, and the court ruled in Davis' favor. <br />The neighboring property owners appealed, arguing a mobile home park <br />could not be a subdivision. <br />DECISION': Affirmed, <br /> The mobile home park was a subdivision. <br /> The definition of "for the purpose of sale or building development" in the <br />subdivision ordinance [nctuded the rental of subdivided lots to third parties for <br />placement of tenants' mobile homes thereon. <br /> A mobile home park could meet the definition of a subdivision. A "su, bdi* <br />vision" was a division into smaller parts of the same thing. Consequently, the <br />division of a tot, tract, or parcel into two or more lots, tracts, or parcels for the <br />purpose of sate or development clearly created a subdivision. <br /> The evidence showed the park was owned by one individual, who then <br />divided the property into lots for lease. Thus, the mobile home park fit the <br />definition of subdivision. <br />see aho: Wise v. Harri~gron Grove Comn~ni~.. Association, 584 S.E. 2d 731 <br />(2003). <br />see also: T~tcker v. Mecklen. bur,~ City Zoni~,g Board of Aclj~stmenr, 557 S.E. 2d <br />631 (2001). <br /> <br />lO0 <br /> <br />© 2004 Ouinian Pubiislntng Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br /> <br />