Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />Page 8 - May 25, 1997 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />the decision to grant the permit. Lunde appealed to the environmental court. <br />Granting Lunde judgment without. a trial, the environmental court reversed the <br />board's decision and denied the permit. According to the court, the board's <br />decision violated a zoning regulation that restricted mobile homes to mobile <br />home parks. <br />The court also addressed Lunde's complaints about the 27-foot setback. <br />According to the ~ourt, the front setback requirement was 30 feet, unless the <br />neighbor's buildings on either side already had setbacks of less than 30 feet. In <br />that case, the court said, the zoning regulation allowed a setback of less than 30 <br />feet, up to "a line connecting the building adjacent on either side of the lot." <br />But because it already denied the permit on the basis of the mobile-home <br />regulation, the court did not rule on the lot's specific setback requirements. <br />Meanwhile, the city granted a permit to place a mobile home on the second <br />lot, with a setback of 28 feet. Lunde appealed this permit as well, making the <br />same arguments against it. Relying on its decision on the first lot, the <br />environmental court denied the second permit. <br />Fecteau appealed. It said the regulation restricting mobile homes to parks <br />violated a zoning ordinance provision - that mobile homes were subject to <br />the same terms and conditions as conventional housing. <br />Lunde said mobile homes were restricted to mobile home parks. In addition, <br />he argued the court's interpretation of the setback requirement was incorrect. <br />According to Lunde, the minimum setback had to be at least 30 feet, even if the <br />neighboring buildings had smaller setbacks. Any allowance for a reduced <br />setback, he argued, applied when the neighboring buildings had setbacks greater <br />than 30 feet. In that case, Lunde said, the setback could be smaller than the <br />other two - but still had to be at least 30 feet. <br />DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. <br />Fecteau could develop mobile home lots in a residential district. <br />According to th~ city's zoning ordinance, mobile homes were subject to the <br />same treatment as conventional housing. Mobile homes could be restricted to <br />parks only if conventional homes were similarly restricted - which, of course, <br />they weren't. Therefore, the regulation restricting mobile homes violated the <br />ordinance and could not be enforced. <br />Lunde's interpretation of the setback requirement didn't make sense. The <br />setback requirement was 30 feet, unless a line could be drawn between the two <br />neighboring buildings that was less than 30 feet back; in that case, the new <br />setback could line up withthe less-than-30-foot neighboring setbacks. According <br />to Lunde, however, the setback would-Btill have to be 30 feet even if the neighbors <br />had setbacks of 10 or 20 feet. But if this were the situation, the setback exception <br />would be completely meaningless. The ordinance intended the line-drawn- <br />between-buildings standard to be an exception to the 3D-foot requirement. ; <br />However, because the environmental court did not review the setback <br />requirements for the two specific lots, a decision about them could not be made. <br /> <br />87 <br />