Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

May 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin referred to a 1963 aerial photograph of Oak Hill, and noted it was now far more congested, with less open space, and filled with "the detritus of life." The court cited the 1955 occupancy permit, which stated that dis- continuance of the permit was allowed "if the safety of life or property is threatened." And, the court noted that the "current use of the [P]rop- erty as a mobile home park 'has intensified beyond acceptable limita- tions' because the conditions 'pose a real threat in the event of an emergency.' " The district court issued an order enjoining the continued nonconforming use of the Property as a mobile home park. Ogden appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's or- der, and concluded that "the current status of the mobile home park exceeded the legal nonconforming use as it existed in 1955 and that it posed a threat to the safety of people or property at the mobile home park." Ogden again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated, reversed, and matter remanded. Vacating and reversing the lower court holdings, the Supreme Court of Iowa held: (1) that the City had failed to show that the discontinu- ance of the nonconforming use under the 1955 certificate of occupancy was necessary for the safety of life or property; and (2) as a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court had addressed the specific issue), that intensification of a mobile home park use due to the addition of structures or the expansion of homes within the park did not amount to an illegal expansion of the authorized nonconforming use. In so holding, the court first explained the law on nonconforming use. The court said that a nonconforming use is one "that lawfully existed prior to the time a zoning ordinance was enacted or changed, and continues after the enactment of the ordinance even though the use fails to comply with the restrictions of the ordinance." A lawfully exist- ing prior use of the property creates a vested right in the continuation of the nonconforming use "unless the nonconforming use is legally abandoned, enlarged, or extended," explained the court. The court noted that the City's Municipal Code specifically provided for discontinuation of a nonconforming use if "necessary for the safety of life or property." Here, the court could not conclude that the City had shown that the discontinuance of the nonconforming use under the 1955 certificate of occupancy was necessary for the safety of life or property. The court found no evidence in the record that demonstrated the existence of a significant safety issue. Oak Hill had not been cited for any fire safety code violations or for any zoning violations until the 2014 notice. The court also found that the City had failed to meet its burden of proving that Ogden had so substantially changed the character and intensity of the mobile home park so as to have lost his vested right to 10 ©2018 Thomson Reuters